An American publishers interest in her upcoming "tell all" book has prompted David Farrant's former secretary "The Yorkshire Pudding" to proclaim that she's now "more popular than Jesus." Reaction was swift as the American Bible Belt protested in the South and Midwest, and conservative groups staged protests. Even The Vatican got involved with a public denouncement of Puddin's comments.Will the controversy inhibit her ability to worship as a Catholic? The Puddin's not saying. Farrant however has commented that "(the publishers) really like the ‘hurt little girl’ angle; well they would really wouldn’t they, being America?!"
33 comments:
"An American publishers interest in her upcoming "tell all" book has prompted David Farrant's former secretary "The Yorkshire Pudding" to proclaim that she's now "more popular than Jesus."
I can confirm the publisher's interest in America, Cat I can also confirm that I am negotiating with the publishers for the best terms.
OK. No problem there, but what I would dispute is this "tell all" angle!
She's got nothing to tell, believe me! Except maybe that I sacked her as my secretary in 2007 for making just these sort of sensational declarations (which she also put all over the Internet).
Though I doubt that she will 'reveal' that!
David Farrant (President, BPOS and THVS)
She must have something to tell. Otherwise there wouldn't be anything to put in the book.
I have read it!
There were several copies in circulation as I remember. In a word, boring! But maybe not to the Americans who seem very fascinated with all this dickipoggy, which does have the potential to make the next DALLAS!
Its what she’s left out of her ‘book’ that is really of far greater importance, Mal. And the ‘facts’ that she does include have been so distorted as to make me appear the ‘villain’ of the story.
For example, she told at least three different people that I had wanted to ‘marry her’! This was not true and I had to repudiate this when she caused this to published on the Internet.. She did not really challenge this rebuttal but rather wrote in her Blog on January 11th this year . . .
"According to My Lovely Ex Boyfriend
I am still 'revelling in my own evil ploys'? Whatever on earth that is supposed to mean considering that I have nothing to do with any of those iditots in London nowadays and prefer to keep myself to myself usually. Hence the reason why I find it easier to go to a Church in Halifax at 11am because you can do the Service and just go. Also according to my lovely Ex, I'm wallowing in my own misery because according to them I betrayed them big-style when in reality it was my ex who betrayed me by doing the things he did, leading me up to thinking that we were going to get engaged, when in reality he didn't feel the same way about me, why did he just not say so then leading me up the garden path? Why did he not just say that he didn't want us to get engaged? It certainly wouldn't have been the end of the world, certainly isn't, in fact finnishing with him has and was the best day of my life”
I have not corrected the spelling but copied this as she wrote it. But you can perhaps see that these are really the words of a very embittered woman.
In reality, it was myself who told her on June 12th2007 that I just wanted to ‘forget the whole thing’ (after she had decided to re-establish contact with the ‘bonky one’ and post material on his message boards), which included her position as my then secretary.
David Farrant
PS This is NOT anonymous and I have signed it. Just having a problem with my Google account again.
Having said that, my Google account is working again now so you can forget that 'PS'!
But while here again, I can confirm that other people read copies of her 'exclusive manuscript' - indeed, she even sent a copy to 'Bonky'.
David Farrant
But its funny that Bonky did a dickipoggy over the book, thats the bit I can't understand. You would have thought he would have been all for it when it was being negative about David, but I do remember C stating that no way was she taking any notice of Bonky's instructions on the matter. However, I didn't understand why she had sent it to him at all, when I warned her he would be a pain and nit pit. As far as I remember it was all very sudden, Bonky said jump and she jumped---at that time everything was a bit chaotic, in transition so to speak, then there was the telling off from the priest and I got dragged in and s truck off..........Even if what she wrote about Bonky was a bit wonky, you would have thought under his isntructions she could have changed all that to a glowing report about how wonderful he was. Anyhow even if it was consigned to her WPB it sounds as though it has arisen from the ashes and will--Bonky's tantrums notwithstanding--make an apperance on the world's stage after all! In anticipation
tata barbara
So the book is a romance confessional? I realize she was in love with Mr. Farrant but was she later in love with Sean Manchester?
actually , there was a third party--a menage a trois you might say!
FOR MAL AND WHOVER
The book is not about 'love confessions' - quite the opposite I would call it! Yes 'hate confessions' would be a better word.
Reading the 'book' you might find it difficult to believe that this was from a person I'd trusted and supported for the best part of 4 years (her very first letter to myself was dated 21 September 2002). I have all her correspondence to prove this, although most people already know it anyway.
A third person was involved at a much later date and 'no', I'm not talking about a 'threesome'!), but she even deceived him too by lying and withholding an essential part of the truth from him about Bonky.
He knows a little more now after I was forced to write to him, and I even gave a copy of my letters to the police at the time which led them, in turn, to also call her a "little liar" and to apologise to myself for examining my computers.
Truth is indeed stranger than fiction sometimes!
David Farrant
Hi David,
can you send me details when the book is coming out and the publishers. I didn't think it would ever come to anything,as I was told bonky had banned it--though what the hell it had to do with him I cannot think!!! I cant imagine why bonky had such a dickipoggy over it--well as you know I saw it before it went off to bonkydom! Good luck! What goes around comes around they sayeth!
barbara
Yes of course, Barbara, but I don't want to put prior information here at this stage.
The woman phoned me again about an hour age (early afgternoon their time) so I can tell you this much here . . . it won't be long as the think has already been published - rather typed. I have to do an introduction though to fill them in on the true relationship (rather, friendship, of course!) between them.
And 'no', it has nothing whatsoever to do with Bonky - or 'her' for that matter.
The main principle character in 'her' story is myself, so I have every right to act accordingly. She (the American editor) absolutely agreed with me!
Bonky denied ever receiving the manuscript we should also remember, so he would really 'put his foot in it' if he changes his story before publication, wouldn't he!??
For the moment
David (Farrant)
David, this book could be as controversial as "Lady Chatterly's Lover", so I hope you did not edit and "sanitise" the manuscript! It would be cheating to remove anything Puddin wrote that you did not agree with. In fact, I insist you promise the book will be "unexpurgated"!
Millions (OK, a few) fans await!
Sean Manchester banned the book? In his capacity as bishop? Is this information published somewhere?
No, nothing will be changed Cat (apart from some appauling technical grammer) - I am not like that. Of course, I dislike it! But that's exactly why I've agreed to its publication. (If that makes sense!). You see, I don't need to omit anything as the 'book' (manuscript) really speaks volumes about her own 'hurt' state of mind. Bear in mind, it was written after she had re-established contact with the bonky one and so only goes to show his malevolent influence.
No. I never change peoples' original work. Apart from my introduction (and some gramatical changes), that will be my only input (apart from a few pictures, of course!).
Can I say this though . . . this manuscript did not come from Barbara (she deleted her particular copy after a certain letter of complaint was made to the genuine Bishop of Leeds)not from myself though but from the author of this pulp fiction.
The manuscript was never published in paper form (as far as I am aware) but was sent to myself via a computer copy.
As Barbara said . . . "What goes around, comes around" - or something like that!
I'll get back to that other character later.
David (Farrant)
I don't know what the letter of complaint was about David--to the real bishop, as I don't know what I was supposed to have done wrong except it was to do with me not dropping you and going back to Bonky on her whim. He must have binned it if he actually received it, I never heard, but wrote my own anyway just in case, he probably binned that as well and
thought "women!" Still I never got taken to task by any of them, as, the saying goes, there was no case to answer--it was a load of rubbish
Regarding the book, I take it you will be adding some footnotes of explanation and safeguarding the reputation of those whose livelihoods might otherwise be compromised by these giddy girlish confessions, though the four in frocks--the other "bishops" of the other Old Catholic Church who signed that whatever it was called, that Latin document, I don't think you need to be unduly perickerty about them, if you remember. I think I still have quite a bit of paperwork on that particular episode,haha, somewhere!
tata barbara
ps Is Bonky denying he received teh ms? How odd. He most certainly did get it--against my advise as I have said, I didn't understand why she sent it, but it was around the "changeover"--but she a ssured me he would not stop her publishing, then next I heard was he had done a dickipoggy but she was being a bit erm---mysterious--at this point---and I gathered his nibs has said she hadnt to publish and all of a sudden there was no more mention of the book, then the ***** hit the fan over David's letter to the priest, etcetera etcetera, you knwo the rest. But Bonky did Ban the Book, absolutely!!!!
Bonky is not only denying that he received it Barbara, but that he was even in communication with the Yorkshire Pudding. Well, his version was (is) that the Pudding approached him once full of 'repentance' for her association with myself and her involvement with his other perceived (though imaginary)'enemies' - that included other Old Catholic priests and clergy who did not recognise him as a bishop. He claimed she had been 'forgiven' for her sins but that there had been no further contact!
What utter nonsense. I have irrefutible evidence that they were in regular contact by email and that she was posting regularly on his amateurish self-created message boards. She made regular 'posts of repentence' about her alleged relationship with myself, and others involved in Society investigations into the paranormal, and he diligently published these for her.
It was all done (on her part)in a desperate attempt to 'get back' at myself for ending our association, and he 'lapped it up', as of course he would do. (She even started employing Bonky's own malicious propaganda: "Farrant, a Failure as a Lover", for example).
I will answer your other couple of points about my next book on this matter and the US publication of her own manuscript a little later.
For the moment,
David (Farrant)
With reference to your point about the books, Barbara, let me clarify this here or it might get a little confusing for some people:
The first volume of my autobiography, “David Farrant: In the Shadow of the Highgate Vampire” has just been published. (Not trying to plug my books here, Cat, but after all it is on Amazon!). I am working on the 2nd volume at present.
My book on the bonky one’s publicity-seeking antics is complete and publication is imminent. This contains a long chapter at the end called “Pact with the Devil” which shows the dangers facing those who are led to support bogus Churches, cults and sects.
The other manuscript which I have just been sent by the ‘Yorkshire cooking book’! is the one I am negotiating with the US publishers. This was written in 2007 but I stress, it was not written by myself but is all about myself. I am doing an introduction for this as requested and I can clarify all the facts in that and foot-notes. The ‘Robin Hood stuff’ will have to be edited out, however, as it is far too long and goes off into an irrelevant tangent.
So these are the immediate projects and I hope this clarifies it for everyone.
For the moment,
David (Farrant)
Well David I will be interested to read the thing again. Goodness knows what the Yanks will make of it. They will be............who knows, love it or hate it, or simply fall asleep. The whole thing is exceedingly dickipoggy why did Bonky say NONONO, and why did she bin it when he did? Anyway its a bit like shutting the stable door after the horse has gone, the story is well enough know anyway from all those message boards.
And casting my mind back,old age dementia or not, if you check the dates it was probably started when you were "in favour" or on the brink of the GREAT U TURN so, to be specific, the ethos of the thing was perhaps a bit confused--you sort of on the way out and bonky being approached to be struck back on. In other words, CONFUSED.
Check the dates, you might find an explantion to the psycholical profile of puddingspensmanship and why the thing turned out as we say in Yorkshire, Neither one thing nor t' other
tata barbara
ps
And how the dickens did you get your hands on it!!!!
Bravo good show taking out the boring Robin Hood stuff. Right instinct.
Yes, enquiring minds want to know...how did you come into possession of this book? And will the Pudding's actual name be published as author..or ANONYMOUS?
Also...photos...? Surely you're not going to publish the one I'm thinking about. No, not THAT one!
Just out of interest Barbara, she started that original title (which she's now kept}in 2005. It was to be an account of her involvement in the whole Highgate case. I remember sitting down with her starting with her past history and involvement in Wicca: in fact, I still have it on my other computer.
Talk about 'reversing' things (or trying to reverse things!).
The 'yanks' DO love it all. In fact, the Highgate 'vampire' case with all its conflicts seems far more popular in America than in the UK - especially all the sex stuff (or vampire sex stuff) as you can see from that blasted Cat's replies!
Well, if she really wanted to avoid notority, she should never have betrayed innocent people to the mercy of Bonky's evil. I mean, what does she really expect?!
She certainly hasn't earned respect from anybody - even her own Church! (And that's without them even knowing about her full colusion with Bonky - at the moment anyway!).
Speak later,
David
The " boring Robin Hood stuff" cat was only boring in the context it was in. It needed a passing mention and explanation of the connection with Highgate, not a full account of Robin Hood and his Merry Men, which is indeed, boring. The Haunting of Robin Hoods Grave, however, is far from boring, with its modern day connections with Highgate, Bonkey and forelock touching cap doffers trying to keep everything secret for their own dickipoggy reasons.
barbara
Cap doffers, forelock tuggers, and forehead knuckling villagers only do what the gentry tells them to do, Barbara. They don't "take initiative" on their own, now do they?
FOR CAT
How did I get my hands on the mamuscript?
Well it was sent to me in confidence from a computer but with permission to distribute.
Am I going to publish THAT photograph. If you must know,yes I am. Its in the US so it doesn't matter. Quite apart from which, the photograph (there 3 of them actually all taken together)is my copyright and there is nothing wrong with it - except maybe its a bit 'revealing' of the subject matter!
But there has to be pictures to brighten up the book as its so depressing and morbid.
David (Farrant)
- "Am I going to publish THAT photograph. If you must know,yes I am."
I'd like to order 3 copies in advance.
If you had bothered to find anything out about the personae of the modern Kirklees dynasty , Cat, you would know that there has been enough "initiative" and suchlike going on. Just as an example, Lady Armytage came from a German, well Bavarian, farm as the au pair of Kirklees and moved up the ranks thereon quite quickly. There's initiatve for you!And a ready made Dallas story, for in the end, she inheritated the estate not the son and heir. I am not being "disrepesctful" to my erm "betters", if I might make to be so bold, your whiskership, I am just telling you the facts. And then, the Robin Hood sites were all kept private and secret.
And still a re, by her duffy old minders. Dont know about the other fellas,those with the erm world famous you know whats havent heard about them for a while.
barbara
Since this Bavarian "au pair" married Sir John Armytage, the eighth baronet of Kirklees, in 1949, inheriting the estate was quite natural. Nothing mysterious or evil about it, my dear.
However, if you could show evidence that Bonky (or more likely David) had an intimate encounter with Lady Armytage, THEN you'd have an interesting scandal.
I didn't say it was Cat, did I. But I thought that the son and heir of an estate is usually the son and heir,--look up heir---successor, inheritor, next in line--- and the widow becomes the Dowager or something.I am just telling you that there was some initiative when you said there wasnt.
Well Bonky certainly did a lot of sucking up but her got a f lea in his ear for his trouble. But he kept up the cap-doffingt--oops--teapot cosy doffing--cos he wanted to badmouth me and get in her favours that way. For all I know they could have had a fling, but sadly I have no evidence. But when did that ever stop Bonky!
FOR BARBARA
Maybe one reason Lady Armytage gave Bonky the cold shoulder was because I wrote a long personal letter telling her I knew what his game was!
I explained that one reason he'd been kicked out of YRHS was because of irresponsible stories he made up about a 'blood-sucking' vampire haunting Robin Hood's grave.
I also had three or four very long telephone conversations with her manager to counter the bulldust I knew he would have given her about being a 'bishop'!
I'm sure Catherine would have told you about this Barbara as she encouraged me to write. Do you remember?
For now
David
Say Kids, how goes the Bish-Bonky thang?? Say Bish, gonna celebrate my birthday on Sunday, July 26th, probably will have a "cock-tail" and I just might have one for "Jackie C" in celebration of her transformation into one "big ass-spider!" Geeze, it ain't every day you get to "boff" a chick that can ... transform ... into some kind of a damn critter ... and ... God knows what ... makes my brain spin in the possibilites......
Say Cat, David, et all, send me a cocktail ... at some point I MAY think of you all ... on my B-day.
David .... Enjoying your book ... my man ... we gotta chat .... I feel another radio interview in the WINGS .... Cat, you up for a challenge? Got the COJONES to do Radio? Oooooo, this should be interesting ........
That War Mongering American Yank ....
Don Ecker
PS Whewww .... If Bonky asks real nice .... I just might send over a photo of me in my "Green Beret." The girls said I looked "do-able."
Post a Comment