BOURNEMOUTH - At a birthday gala documented in his latest blog posting, Bishop Bonkers modeled a new form of personal headgear, reportedly fashioned from discarded scraps of Persian carpeting and designed to give him a more youthful and approachable image."He's got to hide the old bald spot, you know" remarked one party-goer, "and that manky tea pot cosy biretta thing was just dreadfully off-putting." Guests were also treated to a highly stimulating, hour-long lecture and presentation entitled "The Evils of David Farrant" followed by a service of tea, crumpets, and sour milk.
91 comments:
I must say, Mrs. Bonky still looks like quite a goer in the latest photos. Have you ever seen her up close David?
"Goer" is probably the best word, Cat, although I don't know if she is still 'at it'. From what Bonky wrote about her Sataic ritual activites in 1987, she certainly was then.
No. I have never seen her 'up close' although I did meet 'Lusia' - Bonky'd live-in companion - on more than one occasion. Indeed, I sat next to her at the dinner table at Bonky's dingy flat in Holloway Road in 1969On another occasion, Bonky's mate Hill and his wife were also present (as was 'Lusia') when Bonky showed us all a home-made 8mm cine movie in the same year('starring Bonky and 'Lusia') which Hills to have left out of his after-dinner speech for some reason! Probably because the pair of them were 'thick as thieves' and used to invent all kinds of 'vampire stories' together and take photographs of myself in Bonky's home and alsos inside Highgate cemetery.
For now,
David Farrant
Regarding that 'hat', Cat (or whatever it is), I have never seen something quite so funny in my life!. I suppose at least it hasn't got a ridiculous-looking woolen bobble on the top, but it nevertheless looks hilarious! It looks rather like something someone might wear at a fancy dress party dressed up as a Persion Prince!
"Dressed up" being the operative word.
I'll get back to the other stuff later. Expecting somebody at 9 (a young lady if you must know) so have to be ready.
David Farrant
FOR CAT
Just a quick comment about your reference to Bonky's recent remarks elsewhere on the Internet and my comment about that 'poffie looking' new hat.
Just this . . . Bonky and the character Tony are bosum buddies (in more ways than one) and have been since they first met in 1965.
Tony was living in Kilburn but later moved to Holloway in 1967 before shortly afterwards leaving there to move into a flat in Highgate. Bonky was living in a council house with his parents but later took possession (or was passed possession) of Tony's Holloway Road flat.
Tony took up employment as a milkman in Finchley and he (Tony) persuaded Bonky to get a job as one as it was 'good money'. Bonky subsequently got a job in Holloway (following in Tony's footsteps) delivering milk.
I have letters from the company that then employed him to confirm this fact. He (Bonky) left his milkman's job in June 1972, and went on to take up employment as a deckchair assistant (cum cleaner) at Finchley Swimming Pool.
Oh! the lies some people tell!
But the bottom line is that they have always been good mates and will say anything that conveniently suits an Internet posting. Let me add, that both old men are now totally bald - which is why you never see current photographs of Bonky without him wearing some stupid-looking hat.
Don't know why he's apparently abandoned the teapot cosy one now. Probably because too many people made fun of it!
For the moment,
David (Farrant)
Has Bonky got a few hat? Really? He woudl look good in a flat cap I reckon. You know like that cartoon character in the paper wears, whats his name, it will come to me........
David, from the last post on the other mesages, may as well put it on here, I vaguely remembeR I think C mentioning that you wrote to Lady A,though I had forgotten. Did the "lady" have the common courtesy to answer you. To even thank you for your trouble? I bet not, I bet you never got a reply from either her nor the priest. They think we are beneath them. Bonky did get a reply,in the 1980s I have a copy of it, she said NONO NO.
Well I don't like being ignored by these guys who think we wwill just disappear magically if they ignore us!
I got a few replies initially from LADYBOY--oops ladyship Milady A saying TOO BUSY BUSY BUSY BLAH BLAH then I WAS IGNORED OR THE MINDERS SET ON ME TO BLUFF AND THREATEN and a ttempt to scare me off. Pathetic.
Anyway I'll leave you to discuss the cap!
barbara
http://www.halifaxcourier.co.uk/news/It39s-flat-caps-ale-and.5490668.jp
follow this link and have a laugh!
Its Andy Capp!
Well, I did get a reply indirectly.
Her manager phoned me (after 'Pud Face' had given him my number)and said Lady Armytage had discussed my letter with him. She said the grave was on private property and that Bonky had had no right to trespass there at night as he said he did. But she thanked me for asking for permission beforehand. That was a polite 'no' I guess!
Now, that ridiculous-looking hat.
Do you know, I'll bet a penny to a pound that if Bonky went walking in the street wearing that, people would not only stop to laugh, but it would not be long before he was taken into care!
David (Farrant)
Well that's just typical David, honestly it makes me wonder really that some people can't even pick up a pen themselves. It was the same on the message boards, all these old fogeys rushing off like geriatric knight errants to "stick up" for the "poor defenceless lady " from my "attacks." The fact it, I just presented the truth of the situation as it was , if it looked bad it wasn't from what I said but from what they did ----- in other words it was shooting the messenger and these old boys and some young ones only did it to get treated with favouritism.
Yuk!
Sorry to go off the hat subject David but such hypocrisy and snobbery makes me sick!
Back to the Mad Hstters Tea Party!
Oh Crikey--I've just had a look at that blog and am, well--lost for words,hee hee.
He looks like Noel Cowerd in his smoking cap---its funny isnt it also, that all they could do was bitch about David through-out the birthday frolics, you should be honoured David that they find you so important to their lives. How funny! Was Armeius there, he wrote the revue, which was was he?
I wonder if nourishing broth was on the menu, hohoho
Of course 'Ariminous' was there, Barbara. He was sitting at the head of the table with that silly hat on!
But my gosh, doesn't 'Brother Keith' look althoug he's been dragged through a privot hedge twice backwards?
I certainly wouldn't eat anything he served up! Maybe he made the soup. If he did, they'll all end up getting food poisoning!
David
I wonder who the rest of the people at the tea party were?
I assume they were Sarah's sisters and brothers as she's got quite a few apparently. Bonky is an only child and the only friends he have are 'brother (ex-beatnick) Keith and his old side-kick in publicity-seeking, Tony.
Forgot to mention before, but just for the record, Bonky was 65.
He could be pensioned off now!
David Farrant
What? Have I understood that this 'ere Tony Hill was dickipoggy with David's wife at the time? Tut Tut I though his bishopship didn't approve of such goings-and yet his bonkyness has this self confessed person of youthful naughtyness as his guest of honour at his Rave--and he didn't know who the rest of his guests were? Funny sort of party if you don't know who your guests are.
See they had the candleabras out in case of the odd vampire turning up as a guest.
If the transcript was Brother Tony's speech then it must have been the boringest of after dinner speeches. After dinner speechs should not last much over 20 minutes and should be enlivened with jokes, not a boring old resume of a tiff between two old todgers--(sorry David) going into tedious detail from a written script for fear any detail should be overlooked.
Also if you want my humble opinion but I am sure you dont, I think the sideburns don't do anything, especially teamed up with the smoking cap, for the image.
Better bite the bullet and have a short back and sides and wear a smart suit and dicky bow, instead of looking like a dotty old hippy or someone from the cast of an Ivor Novello--or is it Noel Cowerd---musical french farce.
tata barbara
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bS11DckTDuo&feature=related
Did you know that clicking on those blog photos enlarges them? Much fun.
- In the photo of Tony taken on a sun porch you can see two 'dueling rapiers' lying on the sill. Recognise them David?
- Bonky's expression in each photo: he appears, well, "medicated", as if he's on some sort of drug. Don't you think?
-In the dining room. Are those brown PAPER napkins? Heaven forfend!
Seriously, compare Bonky's facial expression to the others at the gala. He does look drugged. Barbara, you being an ex-nurse (I thought), what kind of pharmaceutical do you reckon might cause him to appear dazed, euphoric and passive?
You know Barbara, if you look at Tony's ears, he looks as though he's about to take off!
Bonky once said to me (and I have this on tape) "You can always tell when 'the Eggmanne' [Bonkey's old nickname for Tony] is lying because his ears go red"! That might have been a long time ago, but sometimes things don't change very much.
I don't think that old nickname is so appropriate now though. Should be "Egg head"!
David (Farrant)
Actually, I have found it. It is a ladies pillbox hat.
http://www.sewinclined.ca/gallery/Summer%20Hats/Pillbox%20Hat/slides/africancap1.html
I have had another look at the photos. In front of the Holy Grail pad Bonky looks smug I reckon. Who is blue teashirt man an green teashirt woman?
The two photos of TONY H show him in two different locations. One with a midriff flashing lady, he looks to be giving a speech, yet he is giving a speech over the table and Bonky is gazing at him with a sort of glazed expression, could be anything really, bored or besotted. His wife looks deliriously happy anyway so he must be doing summat right,
tata barbara
Here's one from me as well Cat.
http://hollywoodgoldenyears.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/images/TOMMY_COOPER.34500312.jpg
But I still want to know what he's done with the teapot cozy!?
I see Bonky is updating his blog in response to the latest posts on this one.
"It is curious how Farrant failed to recognise the VRS member who ripped a roll of film out of the back of his camera at a Psychics Fayre at Alexander Palace, London, a quarter of a century ago when Farrant was secretly trying to photograph Seán Manchester in another part of the exhibition."
Well what about that film?
Well, that just shows you how paranoid Bonky really is Cat and how he just makes things up. I didn't try to 'secretly film' anybody but took pictures in the open. There was a Psychic Fair in North London in 1981 and I asked the organizer (his name could have been Peter Wilson) if I could take pictures of some of the stalls (which I did). Bonky just happened to be standing outside one of them wearing a make-shift 'occult badge'he had pinned on himself.
I later had the film developed so that's something else he's making up.
Bonky and Tony go so well together. They cook up all these stories (the 'Bradish affair' is yet another example) and hope they can dupe people into believing events, many of which occurred before many people were even born, or would have been far too young to remember.
David Farrant
I find this new hat - rather cap - really fascinating. A great 'mystery' to be solved.
There is another alternative. I don't think that there is any dispute that it has been home-made.
Well, if you look closely, it looks like a bathroom bag with the zip removed, devoid of its contents of flannels, shaving brushes and toothpaste etc, and hand-painted. Seriously, that's what it looks like!
I may be wrong, of course, because we have not yet seen the article in real life. I am talking about the hat itself, of course, because most have seen the bald head it covers!
But all will be revealed once we get to the bottom of this intriguing mystery!
David Farrant
On a more serious note (although I was being serious about that ridiculous hat), I quickly checked the update you supplied to Bonky's Blog, Cat
I found it typically amazing that Bonky is now querying how I would know that Sarah had brothers and sisters and trying to claim that Tony's 'speech' was not only about myself.
With regard to the latter, Bonky's summary of Tony's 'after dinner speech' went on for pages in his Blog (and mentioned no other subject matter apart from myself) so is he now trying to get us all to swallow that I didn't play a principle part in it - if not the only part? Typically, Bonky is now trying to 'back-peddle' after having been 'sussed' by people such as yourself Cat!
As to the latter (i.e. "How would Farrant know if Sarah had any brothers or sisters, etc), well, I can tell you how, because , BONKY HIMSELF SAID SO!
In his self-published pamphlet "From Satan to Christ" which he published in 1988, Bonky says when writing about Sarah (quote} . . . "Born in Melksham, a small Wiltshire town, in the sixties, Sarah was the easiest of six to look after" etc. Just a little later on he makes mention of one of her brothers.
Oh dear! Bonky should really be a bit more careful with his own given facts!
And that is not even to mention his descriptions later on in this pamphlet of Sarah's morbid 'ritual activities' after having been initiated into some Satanic group.
(Please remember, it was Bonky himself who wrote such sordid material - I didn't!)
David Farrant
Indeed, David, that was no ligh-hearted and entertaining after dinne speech, it was ranting propoganda. In a normal talk to a group I talk for 30 minites, show slides for 10 and thn have a discussion, a but longer if it is a history group who want more detail. Humour is essential even when talking about serious stuff, I dont crack jokes, people just laugh at all the daft things that have happened.Its teh way I tell 'em! In an afer dinner speech where I dont usually do slides, 20 minutes is enough and to keep off the really deadly serious stuff or at a least throw plenty of humour in--actally mentioning the famous vampire hunter always gets a laugh!
I would not dream of standing up and droning on about, well in my cse, the Kirklees lot for ten pages or whatever, that makes it look as though you have an unhealthy obsession, which clearly Bonky--and Tony Twinkletoes who was pandering up to him--have with David . Still Sarah Janes seemed to find it hilarious!
tata barbara
For John Baldry's Cat:
I was once told by a man who used to know her well that Mrs. Bonky had a job selling clothes at Kensington Market in West London during the day, but that in the evening she had a more arcane line of business. It seems that, like Mary Magdalene, she was 'saved' from her sinful life by Bonky. (Note: careful readers will have observed that I normally post from David's when I visit him on Fridays, but today is Saturday: this is because I had to attend a birthday dinner yesterday, but my usual Saturday Fellowship of Isis meeting had to be cancelled, so here I am.)
Gareth J. Medway
Thanks for that Gareth. Mrs. ‘Bonky” certainly had a second life-style and if you remember I published your findings on this in my magazine “The Highgate Vampire Casebook Files” in [1976].
Anyway, to get back to “Tony”, and his long ‘after dinner speech’ about myself made at Bonky’s 65th ‘birthday bash’ on July 15th, interested readers may also be interested to learn that on 24th January 1971, Tony also made another appearance in the “News of the World” in a story titled “Beat the Devil priest calls in magician.”.
The NOW story ran along the lines that a church in Islington had been discovered to have been desecrated by Satanists but that clergy had called in a magician, naming one Mr. Sean Manchester, to rid the desecrated church of its evil influences. He performed such an ‘exorcism’ – or so the story went’ - and quoted him as saying . . . “It took the form of an invocation to the powers of good to banish the Devil”. Such went the News of the World report, which written by journalist Roy Stockdill..
Okay so far. But when one Bonky later brought out his book on the Highgate vampire case in 1085 and mentioned this episode reported in that newspaper, he published a photograph of his own of this ‘exorcism’ inside the church, and one of the participants was no less than “Tony” - the very same person that ‘Bonky’ is now advocating on his Blog. and who gave the recent long ‘after dinner speech’ all about myself!
Strange what some newspapers say sometimes, I know. But maybe no less ‘stranger’ than some of the gossip some people might spread outside the public arena! Such as at private parties, for example.
Oh, and before I conclude, I mustn’t forget to offer belated birthday greetings to Bonky and his humouress wife!
David Farrant.
How does Barbara Green always manage to get things wrong? That is not Mrs Manchester in the picture where she is referred to by Green as finding Hill's talk "hilarious." It is someone else. Where are all the many pages alleged by her where this talk is mentioned at source? There is only one concise page. Where does the original blogger mention the talk's duration? He doesn't. The only person to state how long the talk lasted is "John Baldry's Cat" and he is being "satirical." Green so often takes what someone says in antipathetic comments as fact and then falsely attributes the same misinformation to the subject of the antipathy instead of recognising propaganda for what it is and from where it stems.
Reverse what Farrant says about others and apply it to himself and you are significantly nearer the truth. It is an established fact that Farrant and Hill conspired to fake a ghost story at the beginning of 1970. This followed Hill's adulterous dalliance with Mrs Farrant two years earlier, which (are you listening Barbara Green?) met with Seán Manchester's complete disapproval and caused a schism in his acquaintanceship with Hill who was at that time an admirer of Aleister Crowley and was singularly responsible for Farrant's emerging fascination with the occult. All this can be gleaned from Seán Manchester's autobiographical writings such as "Stray Ghosts" and "Aftermath of the Highgate Vampire." In later years, Hill eschewed his penchant for the occult, having long since ended his collaboration with Farrant which only lasted the period Farrant spent residing in Hill's coal cellar. Hill became reacquainted with Seán Manchester at the beginning of the Nineties.
Hill is not one of the people shown in a photograph (published in the first edition of "The Highgate Vampire") of a purification ceremony for objects defiled by Satanists. Hill was no longer in contact with Seán Manchester at the time of this ceremony. Hill was not a member of either the BOS or the VRS. Hill was at no time a participant in the case of the Highgate Vampire, or any other case Seán Manchester worked on.
Hill's only involvement was in a hoax ghost story in 1970 at the instigation of Farrant with whom he colluded for several months. Hill is well aware that Farrant is a phoney who will do and say anything to see his name in print. He knows that Farrant faked letters to the press and engaged in hate campaigns. Hill is aware, for example, that Farrant was running a vicious hate campaign against Bradish in 1970 without Bradish realising who was responsible for what was taking place, eg malicious leaflets and infantile cartoons stuck in public lavatories. That was Farrant then and that is Farrant now.
How hypocritical of Farrant to quote a sensationalist Sunday newspaper as fact when it suits him, but when the same press describe him as "a failure as a lover" (News of the World, 30 June 1974), and much more besides, he conveniently dismisses them as fabricating everything.
Farrant can't have it both ways.
If the sensationalist press get it completely wrong where he is concerned, then the same axiom applies in equal measure to others.
Thanks Don,
And just to wish you a happy birthday (however old you are!).
Happy to do another interview with you – but not live with the Cat. Bonky, yes, if he ever dared, but not Cat, he or she has got ‘sex’ on the brain!
As for you, “Demonologist”, just forget it Sean! Everybody knows he is really yourself, so just don’t expect an answer. (If you care to check ‘Demonologitt’s ‘ IP number, Cat, I am sure nobody here would get any surprise!).
So once again Don, Happy Birthday today, and I’m glad you’re apparently enjoying my book!
For the moment’
David (Farrant)
Just to be absolutely clear, if I understand him correctly, Farrant is saying that he will "do an interview" with Seán Manchester if the completely bias Don Ecker is in the chair, but if someone falsely identified by him as "Seán Manchester" makes a comment on this blog they can expect no response whatsoever from Farrant.
Farrant will always attempt to fog an issue by questioning someone's identity (never mind that "John Baldry's Cat" is anonymous) if they have him in a tight corner, or by talking about "IPs" just to distract further from the situation. What has my identity or my IP got to do with the fact that Farrant is a phoney who faked a ghost story with Hill in 1970 for the purpose of deceiving the press and public?
Too many people know that Farrant was a hoaxer. I could name plenty who were in on his fake ghost story. His overweight girlfriend, Claire, his semi-girlfriend Nava (who used her address for fraudulent letters written by Farrant), Rob Holt (I only mention his surname so as not to confuse him with Brautigam or Milne), Kenny, John, etc. There were so many. Farrant would not want anyone to talk to these people because they were actually there when he was attempting his ghost hoax. Least of all, Farrant would not want anyone contacting Hill who has Farrant on tape conspiring to deceive his local newspaper with his infantile ghost story.
It is interesting that Farrant has not actually denied his collusion with Hill to fake a ghost in 1970. It would be very silly if he did because the evidence to support what I have said is overwhelming!
Sir Gareth--smacky hands! Mary Magdalene wasn't a sinner, thats a muddle up by the Church over the different Mary's and the unnamed woman taken in adultery. Mary Magdalene had 7 devils cast from her I believe, need to check it out but the "fallen woman" connection is wrong.
Dickipoggiologist--- well that speech looked a long boring rant about David, you printed it up. I assumed the laughing lady in the white dress was your wife and in from of your "residence" was--sorry if she wasn't!
As for reading your Stray Wits romance--no thanks, I've seen it on the web and it manages to be both utterly hilariously absurd and excrutiating boring at the same time, what with your Virgin Birth and stately home and dickipoggy one night stand with the girl with green teeth or whatever it was. I can't even remember anything about boring Tony Hills dickipoggy antics. I wouldn't waste money on such a load of twaddle.
tata barbara
Wrong, Barbara Green, on all counts. How do you manage to always get everything so wrong?
Hill's talk, I am told (I was not present), lasted little more than approximately ten or twelve minutes. Others also spoke. None of them mentioned Farrant or alluded to him. It was a reunion dinner. They are held every month for colleagues and friends of Seán Manchester.
I did not "print it [the talk] up." That was someone else. He was not present at that particular reunion dinner either.
The "laughing lady in the white dress" is not Mrs Manchester, and neither of them are my wife.
If you have seen pro gratis excerpts from "Stray Ghosts" on the web you would have no need to "waste money," would you?
You are deluded, like Farrant, into believing you are funny when you are pathetic, and that your puerile protestations somehow contain wit and humour when they are the rants of a disturbed obsessive. You, Barbara Green, have become little more than a feeble echo of Farrant who long ago was turned demented by his malice. How are you now any different?
Your contribution to any discussion is destructive and depraved. You recognise something of yourself in Farrant and that can only be very sad for you.
What Rubbish, dotty old demonologist, telling fibs also, you ar the one who writes all the stuff up so why waste space on Brother Tony's boring speech about David, wherever it was given, if you had something bettter to report. I don't care who your lady picnicking friend is if she isn't your wife, who she looks like , obviously your wife had better things to do than attend our 65th.hmmm.
You a re the one who is depraved and deluded and obsessed with a stupid vampire that never existed in the first place, and with another man you knew in your youthful days . If that aint mad and totally bonkers I don't know what is!
I am going to ignore the remarks by the person calling themselves “Demonologist”, Cat, simply because this person is not a genuine reader and ‘invades’ Internet sites such as yours all the time. This is why I invited you to check the person’s IP – not that you don’t already know who it really is. I am not going to respond to somebody who is clearly mentally sick and needs help, as opposed to ‘adding fuel’ to his highly personal – yet asinine – allegations.
I would urge you not to respond either, Barbara, to this particular person at least, who is posting such malicious material using his own IP number. It is a tactic he frequently employs to get people to reveal his true identity so that he can then complain about ‘harassment’ when such unfounded allegations have been issued by himself in the first place!
We all know who I am talking about and in that respect, he is literally ‘signing’ his own allegations in his own name. Just ignore him Barbara, and let him take his potential arguments back to his own sick Blog!
I will answer any genuine response but I am not going to respond to allegations that have been made by somebody who is clearly mentally sick.
For the moment,
David
I regret that I cannot fulfill Mr. Don Ecker's request that I speak on his radio show while David Farrant simultaneously drinks a glass of water. Not going to happen.
As for tracking Demonologist's IP, why should I care to? Let him post here all he wants. It will keep conversation lively while I am busy attending to various duties here in Cat Heaven.
Miaow.
If that mangy Cat won't do it Don, why don't you ask Rob Brautigam who runs "Shroudeater"? He's spent years studying the Highgate case - even to the extent of being photographed in Higate Cemetery by Bonky. He could tell you a thing or two; especially in the 'harassment department'!
Then there's Barbara Green. Remember she made Bonky the Patron of her Yorkshire Robin Hood Society (until she later 'booted' him out) and she could tell you a thing or two more about Bonky's antics.
Then there's always the 'Underseer' (sorry,I mean the Overseer, of course!), although maybe he should be a lst resort as he doesn't really know anything about the actual case (and which is why he is always asking questions about it).
But you can still count me in whoever else you find. You know you could even ask "Dmonologist" - now there's a thought!
Sure you will get it sorted out anyway. The end result could be very interesting anyway
David (Farrant)
Hi Yo Bonky!
Tell us about that "brotha" hat you are wearing. Deme, please visit Net Curtains. I'm offended you've not commented.
BTW-Net Curtains is back in business and comments open.
As an NB to that, Don, I almost forgot.
If "Demonologist" would not agree to be a spokesperson for Bonky on your show (which I am personally convinced he wouldn't), why not ask the 'Yorkshire Pudding'?
After all, she has all the perfect ingredients: she would be able to support his 'vampire stories', she is back in sympathetic contact with him again and, above all, would go to any lengths to see the destruction of his perceived "Satanic enemies" - not least myself!
Seriously, she would be perfect, if she agreed!
Who better than to recite Bonky's cause now? Throw myself into the equation, and she should be even more willing!
'Should' is the operative word here though. I doubt that she 'would', but lets remember that it is herself who continually spreads Bonky's spoon-fed propaganga.
Just a thought anyway!
For now,
David Farrant.
"I am going to ignore the remarks by the person calling themselves 'Demonologist', Cat, simply because this person is not a genuine reader," says Farrant.
He is ignoring my "remarks" because they strike at the very heart of the matter which Farrant cannot counter with anything more than self-contradictory waffle. The evidence to support what I have stated is solid. Farrant tries to turn everything around while blaming Seán Manchester for all the ills of the world. It was Farrant who accepted Hill's invitation to live in the coal cellar at Archway Road, London. When they conspired together to fabricate a ghost story for the local press it was witnessed by Elizabeth Hill and all the others who were present at various times. Farrant used the addresses of people he knew to send fraudulent correspondence to his local newspaper. One of those addresses belongs to his oldest friend, Nava Grunberg, who lives at the Highgate Village end of Hampstead Lane. She is still resident at the same address Farrant used to submit phoney letters under a nom de plume and can be consulted on this.
"I will answer any genuine response but I am not going to respond to allegations that have been made by somebody who is clearly mentally sick," protests Farrant.
It was Farrant, however, who was examined by two psychiatrists in August 1970 while he was on remand at Brixton Prison. One of them, Dr Oliver Bristow, found Farrant insane, but it required both psychiatrists to have him declared mentally unfit to stand and the other doctor found him fit to face the court.
"Barbara Green made Bonky the Patron of her Yorkshire Robin Hood Society (until she later 'booted' him out)," alleges Farrant.
What does Barbara Green have to say about this allegation? Let's see how truthful she is willing to be on this one? Farrant is blatantly lying (when isn't he?). So, Barbara Green, did you "boot" Seán Manchester out of the YRHS, or, as the public record shows, did he withdraw his patronage and resign of his own accord because of your association with Farrant?
"Catherine Fearnley would be able to support his 'vampire stories', she is back in sympathetic contact with him ... lets remember that it is herself who continually spreads Bonky's spoon-fed propaganga." says Farrant.
This is the playground level of propaganda Farrant (who was born in January 1946 and therefore hasn't the excuse of youthful foolishness) puts out without a scrap of evidence to support it. He has claimed elsewhere that Seán Manchester received a copy of a manuscript which Barbara Green alleges he opposed after reading it. Let me state for the record that there is no collaboration between Catherine Fearnley and Seán Manchester apart from her contrition and his acceptance of her remorse. There has been nothing else whatsoever between them. If Farrant or anyone else has evidence to the contrary, let's see it. Otherwise all these allegations are no more than malicious gossip and should be recognised as such. Seán Manchester received no manuscript from Catherine Fearnley. He has never met Catherine Fearnley and is unlikely ever to do so. She, on the other hand, was Farrant's girlfriend from June 2004 to June 2007; something Farrant now obviously chooses to lie about and deny.
I wasn't going to answer Demonlogist who is Sean Manchester as it is absurd to pretend any other--that a host of people with as assortment of silly names, crawl out of the woodwork every so often with all the details of the Manchester Farrant holy war, and get every detail to tally exactly to what Manchester's propanda states.
Anyhow I have have told David that you struck the Yorkshire Robin Hood Society off over THE FALSE ASSUMPTION that I was in league with him. You struck the YRHS off in a miff because I had mentioned David in passing in my book and you coudl not bear that so you took your bat and ball home and would not come out to play again.There is nothing sinister in David's statement that I kicked you out, its a simple mistake, we all make them raking over this stuff from years back--oh except the Lord Holy bishop m, he NEVER makes a mistake--he has perfect recall--I don't think!
Regarding the ms of C. Well all I can say is that she told me that she had sent it to you and that you did a dickipoggy and forbade her to publish it. At the time things were a bit--well--dickipoggy because David was on his way off her Social List and you were back on the back way onto it, though she said she woudl not "go back" to you I could not understand why she was having any dealings with you. If you never received it then she lied to me. Either you are lying or she is and I wouldn't put money on either of you telling the truth! Sort it out between yourselves, its of no matter to me what happened to the
From Satan to Christ,from Christ to Satan and back again Book 11, the story of an innocent your maiden being lured to London by the badmen/badman and saved by Saint Sean.
I must admit I was surprised that you told her to bin it when you could have easily "edited" it to your own praise and glory.
barbara
Then she did the MEA CULPA--FORGIVE ME FATHER SEAN FOR I HAVE SINNED thingy and you handsomely and nobly forgave her, and then I got struck off--well, 2 and 2 make 4 not 5.
"I must admit I was surprised that Seán Manchester told her to bin it when Seán Manchester could have easily 'edited' it to his own praise and glory," says Barbara Green.
How many more times before it actually sinks in?
Seán Manchester did not receive a manuscript from Catherine Fearnley. I don't believe she even has his email address. If Miss Fearnley told you she had sent it to him she was obviously mistaken, or perhaps intended to send it and then changed her mind, or possibly sent it to someone else who she thought might show it to Seán Manchester. The bottom line is that Seán Manchester would not want to see such a thing, especially if it's about Farrant, and really has no interest in it all. Yes, Hill reminisced nostalically for almost a quarter of an hour which included how he and Farrant faked a ghost story, but this was only in passing. Seán Manchester in the photographs looks positively bemused by it and would certainly not encourage mention of Farrant. Others are no doubt interested to hear Hill's revelations from the distant past, and, let's not forget, he was there; he was Farrant's landlord and Farrant's co-conspirator in a hoax. All this Hill readily admits.
These reunion dinners occur regularly with different groups of people, mostly colleagues and friends (usually about a dozen or so at a time), at Seán Manchester's private coastal residence which is neither a bungalow or a cottage, but a five bedroom house which also includes a private chapel. If you want to publish false and derogatory descriptions, which you and Farrant's clique have been doing for quite some years now, it merely reflects something about yourself which is sick.
That Farrant is a compulsive and pathological liar is evident in everything he posts. He is now trying to say that Seán Manchester was employed by Hill in the Sixties when it was the other war around. Hill was a part-time employee in Seán Manchester's studio darkroom until he ran off with Mrs Farrant. Hill does not claim it otherwise and neither does anyone else. Farrant lies because lying is all he knows how to do.
Well, She defintely told me she had sent it to Sean Manchester and he had done a dickipoggy about it ( though to be honest I couldnt think why) and she could not publish it as he hadnt given his seal of approval and, if he was having a dickipoggy, then he would be threatening her with his "legal team." Naturally! What else! . If this is not the case then the only other conclusion is that C made this story up for her own reasons.If anyone is that interested they need to ask her what she did with the book--its defintely been floating around somewhere else besides in the bishops hands but I have no idea who else she gave it to peruse. But someone has it otherwise how could David have got it? I have't got it either, and the bishop says he hasn't got it despite C telling me he was sent a copy which he denies.
So it's just another of those little mysteries. Maybe she sent it to the other bishop, or one of the four bishops she found in the Old Catholic Church, the other bit that isn't the Bournemouth bit????
Just a thought!
barbara
Was there ever really a book? From what I saw on Yuwie and elsewhere it sounded like nothing more than an idea plus a few preliminary pages before, in a more sober light, it was abondoned. I don't believe there ever was an actual book in the first place.
After three years as Farrant's girlfriend wouldn't anyone be capable of becoming confused and getting things wrong? Cut her some slack, why don't you? She was your friend once upon a time, and you're both members of the same denomination.
If you want to know how Farrant came into possession of her "manuscript" you should ask him, not people who have no idea what you are talking about. I would advise taking anything Farrant says, however, with a huge pinch of salt. Perhaps a few bags of salt!
You keep talking about the "Bournemouth bit" of the Church overseen by Seán Manchester when you have been told many times in the past that there is no Bournemouth Church as such. There is only a private residence which has a private chapel; no Church, not, at least, in Bournemouth. There never has been one in that town and there has been no suggestion of one. Seán Manchester's private residence has been published on the internet by Farrant and those who do Farrant's dirty work. Together with incitements of hatred, the purpose of violating his privacy in this way has been to place him and his wife in danger.
Since you are not a member of Seán Manchester's traditional branch of Catholicism in the denomination he represents, his Church and its locations in the country should really be of no interest to you.
She did write a book, as I was asked to edit it! Which I did, for a few pages anyway! Then I said it was fine it didn't need editing, cos actually I thought it was beyond my powers! She took this book back home but it was then on my computer from where I deleted it.Sadly it has been my experience that both Catherine and Manchester have lied about me in the past , by making distotians and unfounded accusations. That has been my experience, David Farrant or no David Farrant .
Only recently Catherine said it was my fault that the church magazine was not published because of a "nasty" article--it was no such thing!--I wrote about promise boxes. This was blatantly untrue, and I can only conclude it was a deliberate lie, how can it have been a "mistake?" In itself, and the nonsence she wrote about my house some years ago, its of no real matter, but nevertheless, it shows she is more than capable of untruths, whether from bad memeory or malicious intent.
In the same way Manchester wrote untrue things about me, much of it simply a distortian of reality but presented as fact.
So I have no faith in either of them to tell the truth, but, indeed, there is no reason for you to believe me either / However.... Whate're this famous script's whereabouts are, they appear to have resuurfaced, so it hardly matters who gave who what. There was no reason for me to doubt that Catherine had sent it to Manchester and he had put the blight on it--its what I would have expected---if she had had second thoughts about publication then she just needed to scrap it herself--why blame Manchester? But then again I don't know to what purpose she sent it to him, other than, from what I vaguely remember, she was buttering him up.
And it misfired and now he is denying all knowledge-as he must have told you a minute or two ago, Demonlogist.........IF I was Catherine I would be serioulsy miffed at him deying her thrice, as he has done, unless she has decided to go along with the
party line that she never sent it.
It can't even have got lost in the post, he must have read it to ban it!!!!!!! Thought this is what she told me, so actually that in itself could be untrue. Goodness knows why she obeyed him,--if she did--- it must have been part of the penance!Crikey what else did she had to do to gain Absolution from him?
barbara
barbara
"... the nonsence she wrote about my house some years ago, its of no real matter, but nevertheless, it shows she is more than capable of untruths." (BG)
Do you mean like the nonsense you have repeatedly written about Seán Manchester's house; nonsense you have been writing for several years? Does that not show that you are more than capable of untruths?
"But then again I don't know to what purpose she sent it to him, other than, from what I vaguely remember, she was buttering him up." (BG)
How many times do you need telling? She did not send Seán Manchester her manuscript.
"... and now he is denying all knowledge - as he must have told you a minute or two ago, Demonlogist [sic]." (BG)
He had no need to tell me "a minute or two ago" because this matter has been discussed in the past and you were informed back then that Seán Manchester knows nothing about, much less has he received and read, Catherine Fearnley's manuscript.
"IF I was Catherine I would be serioulsy [sic] miffed at him deying [sic] her thrice, as he has done, unless she has decided to go along with the party line that she never sent it." (BG)
There is no denying her thrice. There is no party line. There is merely the reality that he did not receive her so-called manuscript. She did not send it to him. Can you not understand that simple fact?
"It can't even have got lost in the post, he must have read it to ban it!!!!!!!" (BG)
He did not read it. He did not ban it. Try and understand what I am saying. If you want to take it up with Catherine Fearnley, by all means do.
"Goodness knows why she obeyed him." (BG)
There is no relationship between Catherine Fearnley and Seán Manchester. Why should he care what she does? He has never met her. She was Farrant's girlfriend until 2007, and now she is not. End of story.
"if she did --- it must have been part of the penance! Crikey what else did she had [sic] to do to gain Absolution from him?" (BG)
There is absolutely no collaboration between these two people about whom you obsess. If she (or you for that matter) seek absolution it would have to be within your own denominational jurisdiction. Why would she seek absolution from a traditionalist in the Old Church when she, like you, belongs to the modern post-Vatican II Church?
I suggest in future you put any questions along similar lines directly to Seán Manchester and not me. I find this inability of yours to grasp a simple fact tiresome. You repeat the same old claptrap from one year to the next. None of it is substantiated with anything other than the exchange of malicious gossip originating with Farrant.
Just because you say so Demonlogist because Sean Manchester has told you he didn't get the ms doesnt contitute proof. Anyhow, believe who you want, either he, or Catherine is lying because I certainly am not. But nanturally you don't believe me. Catherine could of course have told me an untruth,and she didn't send it, but I am telling you what she told me.IF SHE TOLD ME THE TRUTH IT BEGS THE QUESTION WHY MANCHESTER IS DENYING IT, its a simple as that.
Please yourselves, who cares about the stupid book anyway ! It was hardly page-turning stuff!
barbara
FOR BARBARA
I’d say ‘Demonologist” is the one who is lying, Barbara. He’s quite incapable of telling the truth!
I mean, to start with he’s lying about his real identity when everyone knows full well who he is.
None of his claims are in the least bit believable. For example, he claims to have staked a ‘blood-sucking’ vampire which gave out a ‘mighty roar’ as he consigned it to the ‘bowels of hell’. Then (he claims) he incinerated it with a can of petrol!
Then he claims to have ‘staked’ a beautiful young vampire in a private graveyard one night (his live-in girlfriend in fact) which had turned into a ‘giant spider’!
He claims that he is directly descended from James 1st of England and his wife is directly descended from Charles 11! More fibs.
He says he is directly descended by blood from Lord Byron which entitles him to use the title ‘Lord’.! Just more of his unbelievable fantasies!
He claims he was visited by Princess Di just after her death and she instructed him to compose a symphony in her memory. (This is probably the best one of the lot for sheer stupidity!).
He swears he was never a milkman – which is just another lie!
The list is endless! And he has the audacity to call myself a liar!
He denies his real association with Tony, when I have reams of secret recordings I made of him discussing his true relationship with Tony in detail.
These are just a handful of reasons why nobody takes him seriously, Barbara.
Incidentally, the manuscript was not sent to me in paper form but from a computer.
For the moment,
David (Farrant)
"Just because you say so Demonlogist because Sean Manchester has told you he didn't get the ms doesnt contitute proof," protests Barbara Green.
Likewise, just because Barbara Green says he did receive the manuscript does not constitute proof.
As I have already reminded Barbara Green, she should ask the alleged sender about this if it really matters so much to her.
Why would Seán Manchester have any reason to lie about receiving a manuscript?
These are the puerile concerns which preoccupy those who obsess about Seán Manchester. For everyone else they must be exceptionally boring and tedious.
Incidentally, I am not "lying" about my identity. I am merely not offering my identity, in common with the overwhelming majority of web users. Farrant, being a publicity-seeker, wants to scream his identity from the roof tops. Unfortunately for him, nobody is remotely interested in hearing what he has to say.
Interesting to note that “Demonologist” has not answered any of the points I reminded him of about ridiculous claims he has made on the Internet and/or distributed via the media. That surely speaks volumes about the claims he is making now about myself. Under the fake alias he is using of course! I put my full name to posts because I have nothing to hide – he, on the other hand, has plenty.
Regarding his claims about the manuscript, on this rare occasion, I am prepared to believe Catherine, that she did send the manuscript to the character “Demonologist” names as Mr. Manchester. I know that this manuscript exists as I was sent a computer copy myself.
Now, this really begs the question as to how “Demonologist” would know whether or not a third party received a copy of this manuscript? If it was not sent to himself, then how could he possibly be sure Catherine did not send a copy to this third party? Well “Demonologist”? Can you explain that? We are all waiting!
Regarding using aliases on the Internet, “Demonologist”, I would agree that many people do this. But the difference is most people do not use them to ‘hide behind’ whilst telling malicious lies about others. THAT is the difference!
David Farrant
Of course 'Demonologist' is Mr. Manchester. In one of his earlier posts he slips up and gives himself away by saying, 'Neither of these two people were my wife.' Oh crumbs!
What I want to know is: was the Highgate Vampire at the party?
I never said that what I aid about the ms in question was "proof"--I simply told you what I was told,
Mr Manchester seems very anxious to distance himself from it---in other words distance himself from Catherine despite her abject--and unecessary--apology to him--what for??? I wonder why?
However, its simply a case of WHO IS TELLING TEH PORKIES?
It's either
a) Catherine who didnt send him a copy but told me she did, or she did send him a copy or
b) Me who is saying Catherine told me she had sent Manchester a copy but either she lied to me and didnt send him a copy or she told me the truth and she did or
c) Manchester who received a copy but for his own reasons is now denying it---or is telling the truth and never received it--
As I know I am not lying, but cannot prove it to you, I at least know one of the other two is lying.
Demonologist is speaking for Manchester and says he is not lying so in effect and BY DEFAULT
Catherine has been judged guilty as charged by Manchester--some friend!. However, I know what she told me and "think" she told me the truth, so my verdict is
by default
Manchester guilty as charged.
Barbara
"Now, this really begs the question as to how Demonologist would know whether or not a third party received a copy of this manuscript? If it was not sent to himself, then how could he possibly be sure Catherine did not send a copy to this third party," asks Farrant.
Quite apart from the fact that this topic has been exhaustingly discussed many times before, as a personal friend of Seán Manchester I asked him and he told me he had not received the manuscript from Catherine Fearnley who was then also asked whereupon she conceded that she did not send her manuscript to Seán Manchester. She agreed that it is not the sort of thing he would welcome. She apparently sent something of this sort to a colleague of Seán Manchester who deleted it without reading it. It was not a book or anything resembling a book length manuscript. It comprised a few pages deemed unworthy of examination as they appeared to dwell on Farrant.
"I would agree that many people [prefer a pseudonym when commenting on internet blogs]. But the difference is most people do not use them to ‘hide behind’ whilst telling malicious lies about others," says Farrant.
I am not telling lies about Farrant. What I say can be backed up by first-hand witnesses, public records and Farrant's own voice on recordings from forty years ago. Farrant should be telling his anonymous friends who post libellous abuse on his behalf what he is telling me.
"In one of his earlier posts he slips up and gives himself away by saying, 'Neither of these two people were my wife.' Oh crumbs!"
If I am going to be quoted, please do me the courtesy of quoting me correctly. What I actually said to Barbara Green was this:
"The 'laughing lady in the white dress' is not Mrs Manchester, and neither of them are my wife."
I said that neither of them are my wife because Barbara Green had referred to the female in a white top (seated at the far end of the dining table) as my wife, which presumes I am Seán Manchester. She was nobody's wife, in fact, but Green was addressing me as if I am Seán Manchester. Mrs Manchester was obviously also present, but not in that particular picture. So it is entirely correct for me to say that neither Mrs Manchester nor the female in a white top are my wife.
"[Seán] Manchester seems very anxious to distance himself from it," claims Barbara Green.
Based on what evidence? This is wild speculation once again from someone who clearly does not believe in the requirement of evidence to substantiate public statements. If Seán Manchester did not receive the manuscript, how can he possibly be "anxious to distance himself from it"? Green is bending over backwards to twist something that did not happen into a piece of worthless propaganda in order to ingratiate herself with Farrant. Birds of a feather inevitably flock together. They certainly deserve each other as they squawk abuse parrot-fashion (Green echoing Farrant) at those they envy and despise.
Aha---so Catherine has been asked and she denied sending it! Okay, why didn't you say so in the first place, Demononologist?
So she is saying I am lying in telling you that she told me she had sent it to Manchester and he forbade her to publish it!
So I am now the liar!
As it happens she is lying, and it aint the first time, but she is forced into a corner, because if she admits to sending it, then Sean Manchester is proven to be the liar!
HE KNOWS FINE WELL SHE SENT IT BUT DOESNT WANT TO ADMIT IT, AND CONFRONTED WITH AN OPTION OF BACKING ME OR BACKING HIM, SHE IS FORCED TO BACK HIM.
Come on, it makes perfect sense. and for the record it was around 50 pages long, it wasnt a few sheets anyhow!
barbara
Or, as Mandy Rice Davies once famously said when she was in the dock and accused of doing something naughty with Lord Somebodyorother--and his Lordship denied it----"Well he would, wouldn't he!"
"Aha---so Catherine has been asked and she denied sending it! Okay, why didn't you say so in the first place, Demononologist? [sic]," asks Barbara Green.
She was only recently asked. I have said all along that irregardless of who she actually sent her manuscript to it did not include Seán Manchester. She does not say otherwise.
"If she admits to sending it, then Sean Manchester is proven to be the liar," claims Barbara Green.
How so? She does not admit sending it to Seán Manchester. She admits sending it to people other than him. Read my lips: Catherine Fearnley did not send her manuscript to Seán Manchester.
The way Barbara Green obsesses over something of such insignificance exposes her compulsive nature for all to see. Will she still be going on about this wretched manuscript over the next thirteen years like she has obsessively twisted and distorted claims about Seán Manchester for the past thirteen years? Who knows? Who really cares? This is certainly one sad individual with nothing better to do than pursue pathetic vendettas which barely a handful of people in the world are willing to engage in. Thank goodness her church offers a confessional box where she can unburden all her bad behaviour at regular intervals!
Aha---so Catherine has been asked and she denied sending it! Okay, why didn't you say so in the first place, Demononologist? [sic]," asks Barbara Green.
She was only recently asked. I have said all along that irregardless of who she actually sent her manuscript to it did not include Seán Manchester. She does not say otherwise.
********************************
Irregardless is not a word, forsooth! Actually your sentence makes no sense, its just waffle.
********************************
"If she admits to sending it, then Sean Manchester is proven to be the liar," claims Barbara Green.
How so? She does not admit sending it to Seán Manchester. She admits sending it to people other than him. Read my lips: Catherine Fearnley did not send her manuscript to Seán Manchester.
**********************************
Okay I believe that you have been told by CF that she didnt send SM the ms ( except that as youa re SM you know this to be untrue) --but interested that she admits sending it to "other people"--like who? Anyhow as youa re SM you know she sent it to you, but now SHE HAS TO publicly deny it on YOUR behalf as you have made a public denial.She cannot to anything else.
******************************
The way Barbara Green obsesses over something of such insignificance exposes her compulsive nature for all to see. Will she still be going on about this wretched manuscript over the next thirteen years like she has obsessively twisted and distorted claims about Seán Manchester for the past thirteen years? Who knows? Who really cares? This is certainly one sad individual with nothing better to do than pursue pathetic vendettas which barely a handful of people in the world are willing to engage in. Thank goodness her church offers a confessional box where she can unburden all her bad behaviour at regular intervals!
DONT TALK ROT DEMONOLOST, YOUA RE ALREADY TIED UP IN KNOTS WITH YOUR LIES ABOUT THIS MS.
Why on earth should I make up such a story, I dont care whether she sent it to you or not, but the way youa re trying to w riggle out of the truth by accusing both myself and Catherine of telling lies is laughable. But she wont back me up, because she is stuck with Manchester now, both they both know the truth of the matter however much they huff and puff and deny it!
barbara
July 28, 2009 4:18 PM
"She apparently sent something of this sort to a colleague of Seán Manchester who deleted it without reading it."
I told you he'd eventually have to say that Barbara!
This just PROVES what a liar Bonky really is . . . and Catherine.
Well, I already knew she'd also sent it to other people. How do you think I got it!?
Its certainly more than 50 pages now Barbara now that I've put it into A5 and added some notes and an introduction. And I've got a really good picture for the cover. If anybody thinks I 'wouldn't dare', just watch me!
I suppose I just can't stand liars, I suppose. I may not be a Christian as such, but those two sure as hell ain't either!
Speak later,
David
Just one other thing, "Demonologist". You say a colleague of 'yours' deleted it 'without even reading it', but you also go on to say this was because it was 'all about David Farrant'. The obvious question
here is "Demonologist", how could he have known it was all about myself if he hadn't even read it?!
Oh dear! You really are digging yourself deeper and deeper with all your evasions and lies. Getting your 'knickers in a twist' as some might more unceremoniously put it! And Catherine is no better. Bet this is another one that she won't take to Confession with her!
David Farrant
Yes it proves--according to demonlogist--himself--- that Catherien is prepared to lie for him. It is no skin off my nose whether she sent it or not, but I happen to know she did--or said she did and what he said back. Why should I lie, it makes no sense but it makes sense for him to lie--and by doing so has put her on the spot. She has to lie for him now or risk his wrath. By process of deduction if I am lying then it follows they a re telling the truth, but demonolists (himself's) hand as been forced to bring Catherine's statement into the row, cos she isnt going to back me is she? For them to be telling the truth I have to be lying and vice versa, but the knub of the matter is did Catherine send to ms to Bonky ---an again I can only say she told me that she ahd and he had forbidden ehr to publish it. It is possible that this wasnt true but that makes Catherien the liar and not me or Bonky--as he would not have got it if she ahd lied to me and actually hadnt sent it. But I believe she sent it, why would she pretend?
Once again Bonky has hoist himself by his own petard,
and backed himself into a corner.It would have been better if he had agreed she had sent it and said he didn't like--which he was entitled to do and as he didnt liek it she decided not to publish it! As you have concluded David, it must be because he doesnt and to admit the association other than "She has repented of her wrong-doing by being a Farrantfollower in the past"
therefore he has kindly landed her in a dilemma of eithr admitting what I said was true --which of course she cannot do now as she has become a Manchesterite again, which means I am all things bad as he says an she has to agree!
barmy!
barbara
"Actually your sentence makes no sense, its just waffle," says Barbara Green.
Has anyone attempted to wade through Barbara Green's "waffle"? Never mind her inability to spell and lack of grammatical form, she regurgitates her own illiterate public allegations over and over instead of moving anything forward. She betrays all the symptoms of someone with an advanced obsessive personality disorder. She asks why would she make up a story when she has not been accused of making anything up. I have merely asked why would Seán Manchester say he hadn't received something if he had? Why would he make it up? He stands to gain nothing by saying he did not receive it. Barbara Green obviously can't grasp this.
"The knub [sic] of the matter is did Catherine send to [sic] ms to Bonky --- an again I can only say she told me that she ahd [sic] and he had forbidden ehr [sic] to publish it," says Barbara Green.
********************************
"Knub" is not a word, forsooth! The word Barbara Green means is "nub."
********************************
Without actually asking Catherine Fearnley herself this is a circular argument, wasting time and space, that will never be resolved. Ask the sender whether she sent Seán Manchester her manuscript? Not a member of one of his groups or organisations, or some other person, but did Catherine Fearnley send her MS to Seán Manchester?
"How could he have known it was all about myself if he hadn't even read it," asks Farrant.
If it wasn't all about Farrant, who or what was it about? A quick flick through would have shown what the topic was all about. You wouldn't have to actually read the thing. Maybe it isn't all about Farrant? But from Farrant's reaction, his and Green's comments, I would say it is a safe bet to conclude it is all about Farrant, which is enough to put anyone off. I had the distinct impression from what I was told, however, that there was nothing like fifty pages involved; so perhaps we're talking at cross purposes? A manuscript of fifty or more pages has not been received by anyone I know.
Sorry about the typing, I type too fast, need to check afterwards!
Anyhow, much ado about nothing at the end of the day, at least I fight my own battles and put my name up, I don't have some pretend obscure minder with a silly name, (even if such a person actually exists ) making a show on my behalf about something which is actually nowt to do with him/her
What's happened to good old Dennis and Katrina--have they retired?
And Catherine did say she had sent Manchester the ms and got a stroppy reply, you can pull my fingernails out by the roots and I won't ever say differently (bad grammar I know).
Its a simple as that, choose how you wriggle, squirm, huff,puff pontificate and denounce , Demo; your pal Manchester has lied to YOU if he says he didn't get the script , or, less likely, Catherine lied to ME when she said she sent it and he replied in a temper. These are the only two choices you have.
There are no other ways of explaining it, as I have't made the tale up for fun
barbara
You are missing the point "Demonologist'
You said
"Without actually asking Catherine Fearnley herself this is a circular argument, wasting time and space, that will never be resolved. Ask the sender whether she sent Seán Manchester her manuscript? Not a member of one of his groups or organisations, or some other person, but did Catherine Fearnley send her MS to Seán Manchester?"
You specifically said before that that this 'Colleague' immediately deleted the manuscript without even reading it.
It really matters not, because at last you have admitted receiving the manuscript; which proves Barbara is not a liar, as indeed, neither is myself.
If Catherine is now denying the manuscipt, she is now clearing lying. Well, you yoursel have now confirmed this now by an admission that it really was sent and received.
As Barbara said 'Demonologist', who can 'squirm' all you want, but this only serves to put yourself in deper and deeper!
Have fun!
David Farrant
"Your pal Manchester has lied to YOU if he says he didn't get the script," claims Barbara Green who intends this to continue for ever more.
Why would he need to lie? What is the big deal in this manuscript being received or not. If he says he did not receive it, and Catherine Fearnley admits she did not send it to him personally, I believe that is what happened.
"She said she sent it and he replied in a temper," protests Barbara Green.
Then there will be evidence to support this claim. Where is the evidence?
"You specifically said before that that this 'Colleague' immediately deleted the manuscript without even reading it. It really matters not, because at last you have admitted receiving the manuscript," states Farrant.
I have "admitted" no such thing. I am aware that something was received by a colleague of Seán Manchester's, but, after listening to Farrant's description of the alleged manuscript, it could not be the same item. This colleague would not show material of this sort to Seán Manchester and deleted it without reading it, having established what it was about. Catherine Fearnley is herself aware that Seán Manchester does not want to hear about Farrant or receive anything about him. She has conceded that he would not welcome her manuscript and was not sent it.
The only person digging himself deeper and deeper into the murk and mire is Farrant who will desperately reach out to grab at anything he can find to distract from the real issues. Who cares about something written about him by his ex-girlfriend? Who really wants to discuss something so utterly irrelevant?
The issue is Farrant himself.
Why did he hoax a ghost story in 1970?
Why did he pretend to be a member of the British Occult Society?
Why has he pursued a vendetta against Seán Manchester for most of his life?
Is there anything Farrant has ever done, said, written or published since 1970 which does not involve in some way Seán Manchester?
Demonlogist, your reasoning therefore obliges you to accuses
me of being a liar, and infer
that I made up a conversation between Catherine Fearnely and myself to the effect that she told me she was sending Sean Manchester her manuscript and I advised her against it. Nevertheless she informed me that she had sent it. Shortly afterwards she told me that she had had a reply from sean Manchester and he did not like the script and would not"allow" her to publish it. I told her to ignore him it was nothing to do with him, and she should not have sent it as I warned her.The ms then disappeared off the web.
Ae you telling me that I am a liar?
Why, for that matter, should I be bothered. I am not, who cares, but when it became apparent that Manchester was denying receiveing the said ms I queried it.
If he didnt receive it and she didn't send it, then Catherine was lying to me . Its as simple as that. On principle, I am pursuing this because someone is clearly lying about whether the ms was sent or whether it was received.You Demon, ar e in no position to have proof either way . No one has any proof.
But because you are clearly a very intimate friend of Sean Manchester you are not going to a ccept anything I say, if he has said the opposite. You will believe him as a matter of course because actually you have no alternative, having set yourself up to fight his cause. No critisism or questioning of Manchester is allowed, so you cannot dicuss this objetively, only subjectively.
Over to you, Dem!
barbara
I am not saying anything of the sort, as claimed by Barbara Green.
I am saying that Seán Manchester denies having received any such item and Catherine Fearnley has not claimed (to anyone other than Barbara Green, allegedly) that she sent her manuscript to him. She might have sent her manuscript, or something similar, to people sympathetic to Seán Manchester and assumed they would show him it, and told Barbara Green that he had seen it based on a presumption which is incorrect. Maybe someone else suggested it being "binned"?
I don't know, and, do you know, I don't really care. Is it really worth reading? Is it really worth discussing? I somehow think not.
However, if Catherine Fearnley "had a reply from Seán Manchester," as claimed by Barbara Green, let's see it. Where is the evidence? Anyone can say anything.
I am not suggesting Barbara Green is lying. She could have misunderstood Catherine Fearnley. Or Catherine Fearnley could have acted at the time on the false assumption that Seán Manchester saw her manuscript via someone else. In which case, she jumped the gun because he did not, and, furthermore, he would not want to. Catherine Fearnley, at least, now accepts this to be the case. I can't see what the problem is with anyone else accepting it.
What I must ask is what would anyone, apart from Farrant, have to gain from all this? Certainly Barbara Green, Catherine Fearnley and Seán Manchester have nothing to gain. So there must be some confusion along the line where wires have been crossed and misunderstandings have arisen.
The bottom line is that, no matter who claims what, Seán Manchester received no manuscript from Catherine Fearnley.
And that is really all I am prepared to say on this irrelevant, exhausted topic.
I am not saying anything of the sort, as claimed by Barbara Green.
I am saying that Seán Manchester denies having received any such item and Catherine Fearnley has not claimed (to anyone other than Barbara Green, allegedly) that she sent her manuscript to him. She might have sent her manuscript, or something similar, to people sympathetic to Seán Manchester and assumed they would show him it, and told Barbara Green that he had seen it based on a presumption which is incorrect. Maybe someone else suggested it being "binned"?
*******************************
LISTEN BUSTER, I AM NOT STUPID. WHAT A RIGMAMROLE,"MIGHT, PRESUMED SUGGEST?"
PIN BACK YOUR EARS, SHE TOLD ME SHE SENT IT TO SM.If she didn't send it then she lied to me. End of, no "might possibly have" blah blah
*****************************
I don't know, and, do you know, I don't really care. Is it really worth reading? Is it really worth discussing? I somehow think not.
*******************************
IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN A BEST SELLING WORK OF GENIUS. YOU CANNOT CONDEMN IT AS WORTHLESs WITHOUT FIRST READING IT--BUT OH! I FPORGET, PARDON ME, YOU NEVER GOT IT!
*********************************
However, if Catherine Fearnley "had a reply from Seán Manchester," as claimed by Barbara Green, let's see it.
*********************************
Catherine did not show me Manchesters reply, she was getting a bit coy about her communications with him at that point. So on that basis it could have been untrue.It did not occur to me to disbelieve her, though I knew she was up to some funny business with Bonky by then. She told me about his reply and said he had told her not to publish it and so she took it down off the Internet.
********************************
Where is the evidence? Anyone can say anything
I am not suggesting Barbara Green is lying. She could have misunderstood Catherine Fearnley.
********************************
There was nothing to misunderstand. She told me she had sent it to Manchester,no might or perhaps of suggested that.....
***********************************
Or Catherine Fearnley could have acted at the time on the false assumption that Seán Manchester saw her manuscript via someone else. In which case, she jumped the gun because he did not, and, furthermore, he would not want to.
**********************************
well pigs might fly also.What a load of waffling excuses!
*******************************
Catherine Fearnley, at least, now accepts this to be the case. I can't see what the problem is with anyone else accepting it.
********************************
I don't care what she "accepts"--she is stuck betwix a rock and a hard place.She does manage to get quite a lot of stuff wrong, either from bad memory,malicious intent or plain idiocy, but I am sure she remembers giving me the book to edit and afterwards telling me she was sending it to Bonky--and later than Bonky had had a dickipoggy tantrum.
But perhaps she has indeed "forgotten"--we will be kind enough to give her the benefit of getting her pretty little head in a muddle.......
*****************************
So, again, we are back to the two simple questions--either Manchester got it and denies it, therefore is lying or Catehrine told me she had sent it to him, in those very words"I HAVE SENT MANCHESTER A COPY OF MY BOOK THE HIGHGATE VAMPIRE AND ME" it was not possible to "misunderstand" her intent, so this means IF HE DID NOT GET IT SHE DID NOT SEND IT so therefore SHE LIED TO ME.
I HOPE THAT IS CLEAR ENOUGH FOR YOU TO UNDERSTAND.I dont know why you are arguing otherwise, it is nothing to you and you have no proof for any of the allegations so you have to believe what you please. Whic is, naturally, what you choose to believe, or to more exact, the line you are determined to take!
********************************
cont:
What I must ask is what would anyone, apart from Farrant, have to gain from all this? Certainly Barbara Green, Catherine Fearnley and Seán Manchester have nothing to gain. So there must be some confusion along the line where wires have been crossed and misunderstandings have arisen.
*************************************************************************************************************************************
No wired have been crossed, there is no confusion. She told mE she had sent the ms to Manchester and had a huffy reply. No misunderstanding, period!
*******************************************************************************************************************************
The bottom line is that, no matter who claims what, Seán Manchester received no manuscript from Catherine Fearnley.
And that is really all I am prepared to say on this irrelevant, exhausted topic.
July 29, 2009 5:13 PM
barbara
ps
Catherine is lying when she "intimates" --not sure by what means--???via Manchester who tells demonologist so he can post!!?? that she "might have" sent a "few pages of soemthing which wasn't her book " to "someone" who "could have" passed them onto Manchester, (but no one actually read as they w ere about Farrant)--however, these pages which were sent to unmidentified recipients--- " might" have mysteriously floated over to Bonky's direction to Bournemouth and , like Santa, fluttered down his chimney pot and lo and behold, landed on his desk----- As he didn't know what they were he threw them away immmeditly .But Catherine imagined that her book--or the stray unread papers at least --- might have arrived by the above means at his address, so she,foolish girl, assumed he had got it , but he had no idea what she was talking about, and somehow I had heard of this miraculous teleportation and got "my wires crossed" and in my poor obsessive head decided that she had told me she sent them, like in the post like normal people do, and not cast the script to the winds of providence trusting to fate to waft them in his direction!
If she HAS actually told anyone she did not send Manchester the ms--in the Royal Mail------ then that is lie number 1 cos she told me she did send it to him, in those very words which I could not possibly "misunderstand" or get "my wires crossed". Unless, of course , the fourth member of this trinity , Demonlogist, is making everything up himself!!!!Thats a thought, (but of course, Manchester wont know what Deme is saying cos he is too dignified to take part in this discussion!)
I am afraid Catherine's denial--if it is as Demon reports second --or third---hand her get out stategy , publicly at least because if she did do as she told me and Manchester did get the ms but prefers to deny it, he knows she is lying and she knows he is lying when he says he didnt get it.
Bingo!
(Once before when we had a problem over transport to church and she was mad at me and flew off the handle via e mail, I phoned her to sort out the problem and was told it was a "misunderstanding" and we had got " our wires crossed. " I disabused her of this straight away--no wires had been crossed or misunderstanding occured.So I can imagine her saying such a thing again)
So ladies and gentleman of the jury, I rest my case! Is Bonky guilty as charged or did he get the ms? Please spare us more fairy tales demonololist, your bumbling theories and suppositions are making you look foolish!
tata
barbara
Barbara Green's out of control repetitive rant has pretty much proven my point. She is slightly older than Farrant who will be 64 on his next birthday. Why doesn't she just relax at her Brighouse abode and enjoy life instead of becoming entangled in Farrant's mischief and malice?
"She told me about his reply and said he had told her not to publish it and so she took it down off the Internet," says Green.
As a footnote, I remind Barbara Green (and anyone else still awake) that it was one of Catherine Fearnley's own priests in the Roman Catholic Church who suggested she should remove this material from the internet and advised against publishing it. This was not an order to take it down, I hasten to add. A priest advised that it would be the best thing to do. She was likewise advised by the priests in her church to have absolutely nothing to do with Farrant. I imagine Barbara Green would receive the same advice from her priest.
Not so "Demonologist" - as usual!
The Priest asked her to take it done after I had sent him copies complaining about it. Subsequently she got 'told off' and banned from doing the Church magazine.
Barbara refused to contact the Priest which is why Catherine sent her two nasty emails. The second was after she (Barbara) had phoned me up about the matter and Catherine had learned about it.
"You've really done it now, big time", Catherine wrote to her.
Get your facts right "Demonologist".
David Farrant
The priest told
her to take hr blog down, not the ms. As far as I know she never gave the real priest the ms, it was Manchester she said she sent it to. It was the blog he told or advised her to delete.
If Manchster didnt get the ms then she lied to me telling me she sent it. If he did get the ms, she didnt lie to me, but he is lying when he denies receiving it. If she has publicly announced--as she has done--that she nevr sent it, then it appears she lied to me. But I think she is saying she never sent it because--what else can she say now?
I am sure you would like me to go away demiedear, as it is a pain having soemone exposing your lies, or the lies youa re telling on Manchesters behalf!
The only fact anyone needs to "get right" where Farrant is concerned is that he will lie about anything and everything.
On Farrant's own blog he claims Seán Manchester was "unhealthy" and used "inhalers" despite all his healthy activities and abstention from drugs, cigarettes and alcohol.
What tosh!
It is Farrant who uses inhalers for his chronic asthma which is not helped by a life-time's chain-smoking and an appalling greasy diet (according to those who have known him).
When Farrant is publishing negative or questionable things about others they are almost certainly self-observations being projected on his target. Given Seán Manchester's activities, eg blowing reed instruments since he was young and life-saving skills which required much physical training, he would hardly be someone in need of inhalers. Farrant, on the other hand, probably can't get through an hour or so without one to suck on.
Farrant was a fool from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature; for he has given himself to the father of lies (John 8: 44).
Farrant has always been an interloping charlatan and a bandwagoneer who sought attention for its own sake. He does not actually believe in any of the claims he makes. He certainly never subscribed to wicca, as recorded interviews and private conversations have revealed. He genuinely detests the Christian Church and those within it, but, most of all, he does what he does knowing it to be false. He is an arch-deceiver.
The November 1972 case where he was found guilty of indecency at Barnet Magistrates Court is a prime example. It was revealed in court by the Crown Prosecution that Farrant was someone who had colluded with a journalist (who just happened to be related to Farrant's co-defendant) to orchestrate his arrest in a churchyard with a girl for the sole purpose of self-publicity in newspapers. This was confirmed by one of the more reputable newspapers in their coverage of the court proceedings where Farrant and his co-defendant, Victoria Jervis, were both found guilty of indecency. The Hampstead & Highgate Express, 24 November 1972, revealed:
"Mr P J Bucknell, prosecuting, said Mr Farant had painted circles on the ground, lit with candles, and had told reporters and possibly the police of what he was doing. 'This appears to be a sordid attempt to obtain publicity,' he said."
It would not be the first or the last time that Farrant would collude with newspaper reporters to arrange to have the police conveniently arrest him in the middle of a supposed "witchcraft ceremony" with reporters and photographers standing by to witness the whole event.
What was established beyond all doubt is that Farrant was a phoney witch; something the national press (eg "Phoney Witch Sent Out Dolls Of Death" article on page 5 of The Sun, 4 July 1974) dubbed him when he was sentenced at the Old Bailey to almost five years imprisonment in June 1974. It follows that he is likely to be a phoney everything else.
The cry of "I'm not a Satanist!" while manufacturing what is clearly a piece of diabolical theatricality for the press would become his modus operandi thereafter.
Farrant, now approaching 64, has shown absolutely no remorse for any of his behaviour. Greenhorn journalists still, albeit very infrequently, provide him with the oxygen of publicity, which is a sad reflection on their integrity.
When someone has a track record like Farrant's, you certainly do not take him at his word.
These are the only facts you need to know about this sad individual.
ive spent many hours in fact days with David and have never seen him use a inhaler,so maybe having a real women around hes forgotten he has asthma (sorry CHRONIC asthma !)or once again you have got your facts wrong. he may get a little tired sometimes but that could be my huge appetite,but not for greasy food !!
please say a belated happy birthday to Sean. Also let him know ive not forgotten his birthday gift but had to go to States,but im back and will see him soon.No need to lay on a lavish meal a coffee and bacon sarny will be fine.
SPEEDQUEEN xxx
I must tell you, "Speedqueen," that the received wisdom is you are a Farrant sock puppet and do not exist in your own right. This is what those who have seen you on his blog have commented. Why does Farrant always invent characters who are American females who constantly "return" to the USA to explain their "absence"? Perhaps it is because he is such a lazy article he cannot be bothered to keep the charade going all the time?
Like the fraudulent "Veronica Lake" before you, the mistake has been made of making absurdly flattering observations about an impotent and semi-crippled old man who is so eaten with his own malice he can barely hobble the two flights of stairs down to his shared lavatory.
I would not necessarily take the word of people I don't know, but Seán Manchester, who I do know, recollects seeing inhalers in Farrant's possession decades ago. He also remembers the fried food Farrant was partial to in "greasy spoon" cafes in those days.
Though I concede that in more recent times Farrant looks as if he eats next to nothing and survives solely on liquid sustenance.
FOR SPEEDQUEEN
Thanks for that sweetheart, but there’s no real need to defend me against the likes of him (although please don’t say anymore or I’m the one who will have to go on the defence!).. Scarcely anybody believes him anyway because all realize his true identity. There is no “Demonologist” (just as there is no “vampireologist” either), that just a fake name he desperately hides behind pretending to be a ‘close friend’ of himself! Sick really.
For the record, Bonky DID use an inhaler – and probably still does. When he used to visit me at my flat on the boarders of Highgate between 1977 and 1985, I secretly recorded his conversations. In many of these he discusses his proposed antics with the man Tony and proposals he had in mind to get further publicity. On one tape he can be heard discussing an idea he had to get Tony exposed as a practicing Satanist in a French newspaper. He handed me two nude photo’s of Tony (which he admitted he’d taken) asking me to send these to France together with a ‘cover story’ he’d typed for publication. It would look better if ‘this came from me’, he said.
I published a written extract of this particular tape in my book The Seangate Tapes in 2005 in a chapter titled “The Bourre War” [ISSN 1747-7077]. This book has also been lodged at the six main University Libraries in the U and I reproduced one of the nude photographs Bonky had given me of Tony. Remind me when I next see you and I’ll give you a copy. (You can have one too Barbara as well if you want – or anybody else for that matter).
Interestingly enough, during another visit (again taped) he again produced an inhaler (you can actually hear this on the tape) when he was sitting at the table. I asked him what it was for and he replied that it was just ‘preventative measures’ and really ‘had the same effect as speed’. I still have all these tapes, although not all of them have been transcribed yet. Which reminds me, I have yet to bring out “The Seangate Tapes” Number 2.
“Demonologist” must be a very sick little man if he really believes he can get away with inventing all these untruthful stories about myself: although he doesn’t really ‘invent’ anything as such but just tries to ‘reverse’ what I have frequently stated about himself in the past ie that he is just a compulsive publicity, a fake bishop, and an habitual liar.
So thanks for that Sweetheart. The only reason I have not been in touch is that I’m still waiting for the ‘iron man’ to phone me. If I’ve heard nothing over the weekend, I’ll phone him again although I still haven’t got his direct number. (He gave it to me but I mislaid it – typical!]
For the moment though,
David.
NB If anybody wants a copy of “The Seangate Tapes”, just let me know here and I can post it.
Farrant's attic bedsit is not on "the boarders [sic] of Highgate." He lives very much at the Muswell Hill end of Muswell Hill Road which is a reasonably long road between Archway Road and Muswell Hill shopping centre. Farrant is situated withing a few minutes' walk of Muswell Hill shopping centre where he hobbles back and forth to claim his post box mail (when not too inebriated) at Muswell Hill sorting office.
If anyone wants his exact address all they need do is consult Royal Mail Customer Service and request the address behind his PO Box number. Under current UK law, the Royal Mail cannot withhold that information from anyone requesting it. Farrant's whereabouts is therefore available to anyone who wants to check just how close his bedsit is to the Highgate border. It seems only reasonable to point this out as Farrant has all too often provided a private residential address for Seán Manchester to anyone who wants it on the internet. He has even had his cronies upload secretly taken photographs with maps provided which include the full address so those of a mind can find this private address to do whatever they want after reading Farrant's incitements of hatred. I am merely returning the favour, albeit in a very small and more civilised way.
Whether or not Farrant secretly recorded people's conversations, Hill definitely secretly recorded Farrant at the beginning of 1970 and those tapes prove beyond all doubt that Farrant is a fraud who was willing to deceive the press and public alike by hoaxing a ghost story in the media.
Farrant's talk of "nude photographs" is interesting because Farrant is obsessed with collecting nude photographs of people he has known. It doesn't matter whether they are male or female. Farrant will try and persuade the person to take their clothes off for his camera. Hence the poor quality. I understand he photographed Catherine Fearnley in this way and she, terrified he was going to publish the pictures, reported him to the police.
"Remind me when I next see you and I’ll give you a copy," offers Farrant to "Speedqueen" who is really him. Farrant, of course, is talking to himself - not unlike the imbecilic video he had uploaded onto YouTube which opens with him talking to himself in his bedsit. The vanity of it all!
All these quotes Farrant attributes to Seán Manchester are fabricated, and I say that mindful of the fact that the purpose of Seán Manchester's visits was to covertly investigate what Farrant was doing and who he was involved with by saying anything that would gain his confidence. Needless to say, Seán Manchester did not use inhalers. To suggest he would have said that an inhaler is "just like speed" is almost funny because, even Farrant must concede, Seán Manchester, then as now, was and remains an anti-drug campaigner. How would he know what the effect of speed might be and why would he want that effect?
“Demonologist must be a very sick little man if he really believes he can get away with inventing all these untruthful stories about myself," blusters Farrant.
I'm inventing nothing. There are living witnesses who interested parties can meet and speak to about Farrant. They knew him back then. Some of them were actually present when he was planning his hoaxes and puerile publicity stunts. There is also the public record which contradict just about everything Farrant now claims.
N.B. If anybody wants a copy of “The Farrant Tapes,” just let me know here and I can post it.
Bonky only has one tape of myself which he said was for an interview' so I obviously knew it was being recorded. He later 'cut' this tape so as to be almost unrecognisable (mostly answers I gave him about how I was innocent of the police charges at Highgate Cemetery and how true Wicca had nothing to do with Satanism or black magic) and distributed these fraudulent casettes.
Bonky, on the other hand, did not know he was being recorded and many of these conversations were witnessed by many other people.
These tapes remain completely uncut and Bonky himself can be heard making admissions, such as the one I printed in my previous post. He can also swearing freqenntly using the 'f' word.
All these admissions come from Bonk's own lips and it would be impossible to fabricate them even if anybody wanted to.
I put up an audio version of Bonky discussing how he had stolen some human bones from a cemetery with the late Spike Milligen - believe me, there are many more tapes!
So deny it all you want, Bonky. Nobody but nobody will believe you!
David Farrant
Only "one tape" of Farrant!!?
I bet he really wishes that was true.
Hill taped him secretly from late 1969 to the point where Farrant was colluding with various people to hoax his ghost story in the press in early 1970. The quality is not always as good as one might wish, but Hill has certainly got the goods on Farrant. How do I know? I've heard the recordings myself, as, of course, has Seán Manchester who was provided with a copy of the crucial extracts recorded in Hill's kitchen at Archway Road on cassette when they met at a funeral a handful of years back.
The 1978 interview which Seán Manchester recorded was done with Farrant's knowledge and consent. Highlights of relevant topics appear on CDs now available because the original is far too long and covers irrelevant material which would require several CDs. But anyone can hear it all in context if they really want to be bored rigid. I know because, like other VRS members, I've heard the whole thing and people should be grateful that all the hesitation, silences, coughing, lighting cigarettes and pauses have been edited out of the CDs which are available to the public.
Farrant's supposedly "secret" tapes are full of clicks and audible cuts and edits throughout. They are quite obviously doctored from start to finish and the quality is so poor as to render them inaudible.
just like to point out im not now or ever have been a puppet! also im not American.i was born and bread in Hornsey North London. i met David,Sean and many of the others mentioned in late 60s early 70s.After meeting a couple of Angels at a concert mid 75 and went to States with them.In 2002 i came back to settle in South London but return to States frequently.i met up with David again last year.i do have photos of my self with David,Gareth and Patsy.As soon as ive made my visit to Sean and hopefully can add a photo of him with me to my collection i will ask David to put them on his blog!!im not defending or attacking anybody but when i know something is bullshit i will say !!!
So "Speedqueen" pops up half an hour after Farrant last posted and just one minute after I last posted? How very convenient!
"Speedqueen" is obviously Farrant.
Anyone can say someone in a photograph is an anonymous female called "Speedqueen" when they are not.
The question is, given what Farrant keeps on saying about people using their real names when posting, why is "Speedqueen" anonymous? The only alternative, I suppose, is for "Speedqueen" to start stammering: "Fooled you! I'm really Farrant."
The fact is that a genuine person would not be saying any of the things attributed to this sock puppet operated by Farrant's nicotine-stained fingers on his own and now this blog.
- "NB If anybody wants a copy of “The Seangate Tapes”, just let me know here and I can post it."
Yes, I'd like one. I hope it's a CD, not an actual cassette tape.
baldrycat@gmail.com
*EDITED to add: I'd like to obtain copies of the both "SeanGate" and "FarrantGate" tapes if posssible.
your the puppet and a pathetic one at that.Picking up on such small details i didnt even look at times of other postings.Dont take alot to get your strings twisted does it !!! im out of hear now got better things to do but "i,ll be back" or knocking on Seans door soon
You really seem to have 'lost it' now "Demonologist". YOU are the one person using multiple alias trying to pretend they are real. Occasional people I know do use 'computer names' (Speedqueen is one of the) but at least they are genuine people. You are not but most people know who you really are. In case you've forgotten who you really are, just go look in the miror and if you see some stupid-looking person wearing a tea pot cosy (if you,ve got it back yet!), that'll be you.
Both Gareth and Patsy have met Speedqueen at my flat, and I have photographs of us all together (so has she).
You really are a pathetic individual.
You even quibble about trivialities about what the area I live in is called. Well, let me remind you that I was born in Highgate (not on a seedy Council Estate in Nottingham). I now live directly opposite Highgate Wood, and to most people that represents Highgate. Hence its name.
Stop being so trivial!
David Farrant
"I'll be back ... or knocking on Seans door soon."
That sounds like a thinly veiled threat towards Seán Manchester. Proof, if ever it was needed, that "Speedqueen" is Farrant. He is the only one to make empty threats of this kind.
I am not the one who "quibbles" about matters of no particular interest to anyone. I leave that to Farrant who has been claiming for donkey's years that he lives in Highgate when he hasn't lived in Highgate for four decades! Since his parole release from prison in the Seventies he has lived in Muswell Hill.
Farrant's unjustified snobbery finds him constantly trying to put people down for where they were born. Farrant was born in Shepherds Hill, Highgate (on the border with Hornsey), but Seán Manchester was not born, as claimed by Farrant, on "a seedy Council Estate in Nottingham." The house in Nottingham where he was registered was long ago demolished. There were no "council estates" in the area back then. He was actually born in a nursing home called "The Firs" and resided with his parents at his grandparents' rambling lodge in the middle of their thirty acres of Newstead Abbey Park when not living in Montreal, Canada, and Dublin Castle, Eire. These are the facts (available in Seán Manchester's memoir and other autobiographical works of his) which Farrant cannot stomach because he is such an insufferable snob.
For the record, Highgate Wood stretches from Archway Road, itself a demarcation of where the area known as Highgate ends, to Muswell Hill. Most of Highgate Wood overwhelmingly comes under the postcode N10 which is the postcode for Muswell Hill, not Highgate.
You are the one making an issue about Road boundaries, "Demomonologist", most probably to try and divert discussion away from from the 50+ secret tape recordings that I have in my possession.
You were brought up on a Council Estate. I advise you not to push this denial "Demonologist", or I can put the flat number and road name here and invite people to write to Nottingham Council to check. It does really matter because that old Council Block was demolished in `1970 on health grounds and another built in its place.
As for Speedqueen, she was present with Patsy,Gareth and myself when Gareth said he wanted to visit the New Forest on a witchcraft Coven reported there. He also expressed a wish to look up more information in Bournemouth Central Library.
Speedqueen knew your birthday was coming up then and that you lived in Bournemouth and she suggested knocking on the door of that 'public retreat' to give you a birthday card or something. It was her idea as Patsy and Gareth can attest to. If you remember, she told you this in a post not so far back.
How can this be a 'veiled threat'. You really are paranoid, "Demomologist"
I really don't know why you are apparently worried about his. for years Bonky has been stressing that this 'retreat' was not his private address but a 'centre' where victims of Satanism could be nursed back to health under 'Church care'.
Could you now try to explain this? Thanks.
David Farrant
Funny how the Mystery of the Missing Manuscript has mysteriously been diverted by Demologist when he got himself so tied up in knots with his preposterous hypothesis he pratically hung himself---in desperation he immediatly turned the discussion aback to Davids past alleged naughty past--as he always does, when he has been well and truly trounced and shown up for talking balderdash--what a blithering idiot!
barbara
Post a Comment