-- French sexpots get high marks"American women tend to be far more outspoken than English girls" says Highgate heartthrob David Farrant. When asked his opinion of the stereotypical English Rose, he confessed that, "I am wary of girls who are so ’sweet and sugary’ as it often turns out they have a ‘mean streak’ inside." Not surprisingly, he admits a weakness for females from La Belle France: "French girls are less artificial than English and American girls. They enjoy good food -- and they enjoy good sex."
Lads: 200 comments per page is the Blogspot limit, so you must now scroll to the bottom of the 200th and click on "newest" to view the most recent posts to this topic. Enjoy.
205 comments:
1 – 200 of 205 Newer› Newest»I LOVE THEM ALL REALLY!
I think I should make a comment here: I was only talking in general terms and didn't intend to upset girls from England (my country) or the US. I don't think I could have upset any French ladies as I merely commented upon their sexual virilty (again,in general terms, of course!).
No. Women. I love 'em all really. Or at least, some of them!
David Farrant
" I gazed at the ceiling feeling an unexpected feeling of guilt; not so much because of the act itself, but because it had been done knowingly- behind Rebecca’s back. Once again it seemed I had deliberately set out to hurt her; or had least, but I had still ‘gone through the motions’ in reality even though she knew nothing about it. And what a time I had chosen to give way to weakness and jeopardise our relationship. We were preparing to get married and any hint of further deceit would surely break us up completely. ... I was possessed by a powerful magical force that ensnared its victims through lust and sexual desire then left them to bear the fruits of their own iniquity." - David Farrant (The Human Touch, Sunday, 23 August 2009 at 8:25 pm)
http://davidfarrant.org/TheHumanTouch/?p=513
Let's be absolutely clear, "Rebecca" is meant to be Victoria Jervis. She and David Farrant were found guilty of indecency in November 1972 at Barnet Magistrates Court. The photograph on Farrant's blog of the woman about to light a cigarette, seated next to Farrant, is Victoria Jervis who dumped him very soon after receiving her criminal conviction. She went on to have a nervous breakdown.
Victoria Jervis and David Farrant were not engaged. They had only known each other for a short while before the disastrous publicity stunt which resulted in their arrest. Farrant was still married to his first wife, Mary; though they had been separated since August 1969 when Farrant took up residence in Tony Hill's coal bunker underneath Archway Road.
Farrant was obsessed with Victoria Jervis and she is probably the only woman he really cared about. He later published nude photographs of her in witchcraft magazines and tabloid newspapers. This was done without her consent or knowledge after they had parted. It inevitably led to further emotional stress on her part and yet another breakdown. Like girlfriends before and after Victoria, he claimed in the press that she was a "high priestess" when all she had been was a willing dupe with absolutely no interest in witchcraft.
Before the 1972 court case, they had gone on a short camping holiday together and this is when Farrant became besotted, but their relationship was doomed from the start because he was (and still is) a compulisve publicity-seeker and involved Victoria's cousin who was a local newspaper reporter, together with Victoria, in a churchyard stunt on Hallowe'en 1972 which became the tragic blueprint for much that would follow in his life.
These are the facts of what really ended the relationship, as Victoria herself will confirm.
BONKIER AND BONKIER
Well, I see the Bonky One is back, posing as “Demonologist” yet again. Doesn’t he ever give up? People all know its really you Sean!
For the record, Bonky never met the person in question. He knew nothing about my pivate life in 1971/2 – except what he might have gleaned from sensational newspaper reports which he ‘cut and pastes’ out of their true context.
Yes, lets be absolutely clear about this, Bonky never met the person I discussed on my Blog.
The only occasion he even got close to the person was when we were both up in Barnet Magistrates Court facing a charge of ghost hunting in a private churchyard which the police had maintained amounted to ‘indecent behaviour’ likely to offend the Church (we were later each fined 10 pounds).
Bonky had been pestering the police to get himself called as a prosecution witness, but they refused realizing he was just tying to use the case to attract personal publicity.
So he had to content himself with turning up at Court uninvited, and afterwards challenging myself to a ‘test of magical powers’ via a group of assembled reporters. Realising this was just another publicity stunt, I replied that I wasn’t interested, and my remark was published in the Sun newspaper on November 23 1972.
That’s the only time Bonky ever got near to the person and she never spoke to him, but thought he was some ‘nutcase’!
The only other occasion was when Bonky visited her house in Barnet (uninvited). Her late father opened the door, but when she realsed who it was, she became hysterical and her father closed the door in his face.
How do I know this? Because Bonky himself later told me – although he didn’t realize I was secretly recording him.
So as usual, Bonky’s version of events is completely distorted. He tells people only what he wants them to know while omitting the rest!
Well don’t worry Bonky. I have you on tape, so I’d think very carefully before coming out with any further distortions!
David Farrant
Bonky's back, and there's gonna be in trouble
(Hey la, hey la, old Bonky is back)
When you see him comin', you just know it is his double
(Hey la, hey la, old Bonky is back)
He's been spreadin' lies that Davey was untrue
(Hey la, hey la, old Bonky is back)
So look out now, 'cause he's comin' after you
(Hey la, hey la, old Bonky is back)
Hey, he knows that you've been tryin'
And he knows that you've been lyin'
He's been gone for such a short time
(Hey la, hey la, old Bonky is back)
Now, he's back, and the fur will be flyin'
(Hey la, hey la, old Bonky is back)
You're gonna be sorry you ever logged in
(Hey la, hey la, old Bonky is back)
'Cause his cut and paste will make your head spin
(Hey la, hey la, old Bonky is back)
That's one way of putting it! But its Bonky who's made a fatal mistake this time, as the girl in question will sure as hell remember him! She really detested him!
And I have the audio tape remember as the ultimate proof. If indeed any is even needed!
David Farrant
"Now any ounce of trust Rebecca [aka Victoria Jervis] might have had, had been abused and I’d dismissed her feelings with as much care as a spoilt child might disregard a favourite toy." - David Farrant (The Human Touch, Sunday, 23 August 2009 at 8:25 pm)
http://davidfarrant.org/TheHumanTouch/?p=513
Farrant sure as hell abused Victoria Jervis' trust and dismissed her feelings, but it had nothing to do with the fictional "Anne" he has invented to fit his fantasy and everything to do with his pathetic publicity stunts. The churchyard arrest was made for phoney witchcraft and necromancy, not for so-called "ghost hunting."
Investigative journalist Sue Kentish wrote in the News of the World, 23 September 1973:
“By day, 29-year-old David Farrant is a hospital porter. But at night, he takes on a far less valuable role. … But for the results of his actions, this scruffy little witch could be laughed at. But no one can laugh at a man who admits slitting the throat of a live cat before launching a blood-smeared orgy. Or a man who has helped reduce at least two young women to frightened misery. … I found him totally besotted by witchcraft and the occult and ready to do anything in pursuit of both. Time and time again, he told me he only did what was ‘necessary,’ or ‘demanded.’ Throughout, he maintained he was a genuine witch who did not worship the devil, indulge in sexual orgies or relinquish all standards of good. But his own story, corroborated by others, proves otherwise. … With a shrug of the shoulders he admitted mercilessly pursuing grievances.”
Farrant is then quoted as boasting: “My curses have never failed, as far as I know. Situations have always righted themselves after I’ve put the curse on. Others will tell you how I reduced one man to a mental breakdown and in the end he begged me to remove the curse.”
Seán Manchester challenged Farrant to curse him and do his worst as Farrant left Barnet Magistrate’s Court in November 1972 after he had been convicted and fined for indecent behaviour in the churchyard of St Mary-the-Virgin where he had recently conducted a supposed necromantic Hallowe’en ritual with Victoria Jervis who just happened to be related to the local newspaper reporter who covered the story from the churchyard to the court room. The prosecution justifiably accused Farrant of informing the press and police of what he was doing as a sordid attempt to obtain publicity.
Farrant did not accept Seán Manchester's challenge at first, but later changed his mind and issued threats in the national press to the effect that he intended to “raise a demon” to destroy Manchester by “killing a cat,” adding that “blood must be spilled but the animal would be anaesthetised.”
It did not happen, of course; nothing Farrant threatens to do ever does happen. Once publicity in the press has been achieved he invariably fails to follow through.
Farrant could not deliver the curse and refused to confront Manchester in person. Seán Manchester nevertheless tried to persuade Farrant to be exorcised, the first of many such attempts, in 1973; but he was having none of it. Seán Manchester felt even back then that exorcism was the only answer in Farrant's case and issued many further invitations reaching into the next century.
Farrant refers to his churchyard antics in one of his self-published booklets:
“I decided to conduct a ritual in the churchyard at Hallowe’en, the purpose being to see if I could ‘communicate’ with the spectre … I chose an assistant called Victoria Jervis [who] was not personally involved in ‘ghost hunting’ … her lack of experience didn’t really matter. By coincidence, her cousin was a reporter on the Barnet Press.”
Also by coincidence, she was Farrant’s girlfriend at the time - something he did not feel worth mentioning.
“Midnight was soon marked by the chiming of the church clock, but before the chimes had died away, black-clad figures came charging out of the darkness.” These turned out to be policemen who promptly arrested the couple. “Miss Jervis was visibly shaken by the incident,” Farrant explains.
It might have been just another night’s work in pursuit of self-publicity for him, but it was obviously something Victoria Jervis did not bargain for when she allowed herself to be duped into participating in this scandal. Despite her “lack of experience,” naked photographs of her supposedly engaged in occult ceremonies would later appear in New Witchcraft magazine - courtesy of Farrant - by which time she had long since ditched him after recovering from a nervous breakdown. They never met again after the 1972 court case in which she incurred a conviction for indecency courtesy of her association with Farrant and his attention-seeking schemes. She never forgave him for giving her a criminal record which stayed with her throughout her life. She quickly found someone else and they were married. When Seán Manchester spoke to her not long after the court case "she was still in shock and as pale as a ghost, despite her heavy eye-shadow and deep red lipstick which only seemed to accentuate her deathly pallor. Here was a girl who had suffered deception and humiliation at the hands of a career charlatan."
Victoria Jervis made clear back then that she regretted ever coming into contact with Farrant and wished she had never heard of him.
The most painful and hurtful thing that can be done to someone does not necessarily just involve deception at the time of knowing them; it can also be the continuation of public humiliation for profit and self-aggrandisement after they have left you. This is what Farrant did by publishing naked pictures of Victoria in the years that followed. She neither knew of his intention nor gave permission for these lurid photographs (falsely describing her as a "high priestess" - something she would be the first to deny ever being) to appear in magazines and sensationalist newspapers
Victoria Jervis' initial pity for Farrant quickly turned to a deep loathing which remains to this day.
BONKIER, BONKIER AND BONKIER!
FOR “Demonologist”
Well you’ve really ‘put your foot in it’ this time, “Demomologist”, by saying I sent pictures of ‘nude witches’ to “New Witchcraft Magazine”.
I certainly did NOT and let me tell you why . . .
As you are aware, the pictures sent to ‘New Witchcraft” magazine back in 1975 after being stoles from belongings stored in my Highgate flat after I was in prison. No prior permission was sought for their use and I only learned about it after the pictures had been published. Neither did I have any control over the captions attributed to the pictures by the magazine.
But here is the interesting bit\ . . . In 1980 a certain person (whom I shall call ‘Mr Bonkers’) visited me at my home and he was discussing these photographs. But unbeknown to ‘Mr. Bonky’ I was secretly tape recording this conversation and it is crystal clear on a tape.
Bonky told me that the editor of the magazine, Brian Netshar, had apparently blamed us for the closure of the magazine after only 4 issues as they (the magazine) considered ‘we’ had introduced too much ‘witchcraft material’ into its pages.
Bonky states that after the magazine had gone into liquidation about a year later, the editor had invited him to a creditor’s meeting in Dublin as he was still owed money for photographs he (Bonky) had supplied to them. He told me he had no intention of going to Dublin but that he was nevertheless going to make a written submission for payment.
I can confirm that I spoke to Brian Netshar (by phone) after I had been released from prison but he assured me that he was given the impression that I did not object to the use of the photographs. I told him that this was not the case and that the photographs had been used WITHOUT my permission. He also confirmed that all the photographs had been sent in by a one ‘Mr Bonky’ who had signed accompanying letters in his own name.
So you see “Demonologist” (and as I previously told you) you really ought to be more careful before you make such wild and untruthful claims! Maybe you will know about this taped conversation. If not, it doesn’t really matter because I have the original on tape.
As to your other wild claim that Anne was ‘fictional’, I would remind you that ‘Anne’ was also a friend of ‘Rebecca’s’ so you are contradicting yourself yet again here. You seem to have a highly fanciful imagination, “Demonologist”. Yet I suppose for a man who believes in ‘vampires’ that change in giant spiders, that is not really so surprising!
David Farrant
Farrant appointed a female to act on his behalf regarding his publicity while he was in prison. It was this female who negotiated with the editors of magazines and newspapers to sell his pictures of nude women and himself. The same female had sat in the public gallery during his trials. She also visited him while he was inside.
Farrant sold handwritten articles to New Witchcraft magazine while he was in prison. He had letters to the editor published. Is he now claiming his articles and letters are bogus?
Nude photographs of Victoria Jervis did not just appear in New Witchcraft magazine alongside rubbish written by Farrant that had been provided by his appointed female agent in north London. They appeared in tabloid newspapers and other publications. Anyone wanting to take the time and trouble to trace any of these transactions will discover they all lead back to Farrant and nobody else.
Years later Farrant was found to still be disseminating naked pictures of Victoria Jervis in material he self-published from his Muswell Hill bedsitting room.
A DEMON'S GOT YOUR TONGE, "DEMONOLOGIST"
As usual the person calling themselves “Demonologist” has got his facts completely wrong; the poor guy does seem to be suffering from a lot of ‘mental confusion’ about the Highgate case. Nobody was ‘acting on my behalf’ with the Press whilst I was in prison. It is true I received regular visits (and letters) from a young lady who I shall call ‘Elspeth’ who I was seeing regularly before I was arrested, but she was just a close friend.
Many of my photographs were stolen from my flat while my things were being kept in cardboard boxes in the hall downstairs. I still hold many of the negatives to these photographs as these were stored separately and not so easily recognizable.
I don’t know if “Demonologist” has completely ‘flipped’, but I never denied writing two articles for “New Witchcraft” which I smuggled out of prison. Indeed these articles were written in the 1st person and I signed them as could be confirmed by the editor of that (then) magi. But I never sent any photographs with these two articles.
Now, interestingly enough, Mr. ‘Bonkey’ was also in regular written contact with that editor and also submitted articles and photographs to that magazine which he also had published (which the editor could again confirm).
Even more interesting, perhaps, is that ‘Bonky’ visited Elspeth several times at her North London flat whilst I was in prison. Bonky also used to visit myself whilst I was in London prisons and indeed, he wrote me several hand-written letters to keep me informed on the progress of developments in and around Highgate. I was fully aware of ‘bonky’s’ visits to Elspeth: indeed, it was myself who gave him her address (with her prior consent).
The bottom line is, that I sent none of my photographs to “New Witchcraft” magazine. These photographs were published completely without my knowledge.
Although on the tape I have (secretly recorded in 1980) ‘bonky’ can be heard quite clearly stating that he had not been paid for the photographs he had sent to the magazine.
I just thought I’d clarify this for you “Demonologist” as you obviously do not know the people concerned and seem very confused about this matter. Whoever it is that has been giving yourself this information, “Demonologist”, seems equally confused – either that or they have a conveniently short memory.
David Farrant
A letter on headed prison notepaper from Farrant (now calling himself “A D Farrow” (a pseudonym adopted by him when arrested at midnight by police in Highgate Cemetery on 17 August 1970) to the president of the British Occult Society, Seán Manchester, can be found at these links:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_k7iAc57FwyE/Sc5EgG0ubOI/AAAAAAAAAEY/M7jxdhK7eWw/s1600-h/DFprisonletter1.jpg
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_k7iAc57FwyE/Sc5EZO4m3hI/AAAAAAAAAEQ/h6toaoM01X4/s1600-h/DFprisonletter2.jpg
Missing words from the dog-eared and worn top of the second page (on second link) are "... speak for me. I don't know if they have ...".
David Farrant’s (aka "Allan David Farrow") prison correspondence completely contradicts later claims made by him about his relationship with Seán Manchester and indeed the British Occult Society. It is quite obvious he was in awe of Seán Manchester and sought his assistance. It is also glaringly obvious from this correspondence that Farrant held no membership in or association with the British Occult Society.
Written three days before it was posted on 21 August 1970 from Brixton Prison where he was being held on remand for psychiatric reports, Farrant’s own statements leave no doubt where he stood in relation to what was happening. The psychiatric reports would prove inconclusive. It could not be agreed whether he was sane or not. He was nonetheless judged fit to appear in court.
According to the scores of tracts and pamphlets self-published by Farrant from 1991 until the present-day, he now claims to have “founded” the British Occult Society in 1967, and by 1970 his “investigations” were supposedly three years old. This is clearly not the case when reading his prison correspondence of August 1970.
Farrant’s letter explains that his arrest was the result of not listening to Seán Manchester's public warning to him and others engaged in similar behaviour to not interfere with the ongoing investigation being carried out by the British Occult Society. Farrant then claims to have information about a cult meeting in Highgate Cemetery. This did not prevent him entering it with a cross and stake, however, which he overlooks mentioning. He apparently wanted “to find some further evidence of [the cult’s] existence.” He admits going against the wishes of the Society and Seán Manchester. He then promises to forward all the facts about his lone escapade; something he apparently did not do.
Farrant reveals in his prison correspondence that he has now changed his plea to the court from one of guilty to not guilty, and requests Seán Manchester's appearance as a character witness to speak on his behalf. He expresses concern over how the court might react when they realise he sought publicity in connection with Highgate Cemetery over the six months prior, and now wants Seán Manchester in court “to say you have warned people” about the very behaviour he had engaged in. He claims to appreciate that Seán Manchester is “a busy man,” but nonetheless would like Manchester to visit him, or, at least, send somebody else.
He then asks for Seán Manchester's advice, concluding his letter with the following statement: “Well that’s all, please forgive me for being in this trouble and having to ask your help. I would be grateful if you could write immediately.” Seán Manchester did not write, nor did he allow himself to be exploited for Farrant's court case with the inevitable media coverage to follow, but he did visit Farrant at Brixton Prison. This was the only time Seán Manchester has ever visited Farrant in prison and the prison letter written by Farrant on 21 August 1970 was the only correspondence from jail that Seán Manchester has ever received from this man.
The visit left Seán Manchester in absolutely no doubt that Farrant was trying to rope him into some sort of dubious attention-seeking scheme, and that Farrant wanted it to be made all the more plausible by what might be seen as Seán Manchester's seal of approval. Farrant was told in no uncertain terms that it was not going to happen. The court case against Farrant on this occasion was dismissed because Highgate Cemetery, in the strict sense of the wording of the charge, is not an enclosed area, and Farrant had been accused of being found in an enclosed area for an unlawful purpose. Thereafter compulsive publicity-seeker Farrant continued to seek attention and make a general nuisance of himself.
- "The visit left Seán Manchester in absolutely no doubt that Farrant was trying to rope him into some sort of dubious attention-seeking scheme"
From a later period, we have photos of what is unmistakably Sean Manchester and David Farrant "dueling" with swords. Manchester poses as "fallen in battle" for the camera. Why would Sean Manchester participate in such photos?
David, please give Sean a chance to answer first.
Yes, of course, I will hold back my reply to "Demonologist's" confused remark that the individual known as 'Bonky' did not visit me in prison until he has answered the query about how he appeared in 'dueling photographs' with myself.
With regard to this, though, I will just tell you in advance what he will say?
He has always refused to answer how we appeared in these photographs together (and there were others) but of the photograph of himself lying on the ground supposedly 'dead' with alleged 'blood' from a head wound, he will tell you (that is, if he answers at all) that this was a 'still' from a short film he appeared in made by "Lancealot" productions.
This is complete 'bulldust', but if he's planning to use this one again, let him tell us where and when this film was shown,the details of this film production company and the identities of the people who made it.
I can tell you in advance that he won't be able to do this as there wasn't any film production company: just himself and myself! in it.
But anyway, lets wait for him to answer this first.
David Farrant
If you look at the "fallen in battle" photographs you will note certain facts:
(1) Farrant is clearly not present in any pictures taken on the set of a small movie titled "The Duel."
(2) There are actors and actresses present in the "fallen in battle" photographs. Farrant would not be able to identify them because he was not there.
(3) There was a sword fight between Farrant and Seán Manchester. The only other people present were those each of them appointed as seconds. This should not be confused with the movie.
(4) Seán Manchester was declared by all parties to have won the real duel. The outcome was announced in Time Out magazine.
(5) The loser, Farrant, was obliged to stop falsely using the nomenclature of the British Occult Society, as previously agreed would happen if he lost. He could hardly do otherwise because it had been made public. Soon afterwards, Farrant ceased to use the name of the British Occult Society.
___________________________________
N.B.
I have addressed this matter, but any further playing of Farrant's little game of referring to me (and anyone else who is critical of him) as "Seán Manchester" will result in no response being given.
As I predicated,"Demonologist", you have failed to identify the alleged film company and when and where this film was shown. That is hardly surprising because no such film was shown.
You did however, take several still blach and white photographs showing Bonky supposedly 'dead'. I have always denied being present when these pics. were taken so you're not telling us anything new on that.
What really happened is that this photograph was circulated to the Press (by Bonky) together with an accompanying story that I had killed Bonky in a duel in Northern France. I received a visit from the Daily Mirror who waved this photograph in my face. I also later received a visit from the Highgate CID asking me what I 'had done with his body'! I referred them to Interpol saying the matter was outside their juristriction.
Very soon after this, a load of "Memorial Fund Notices" were circulated to the Press and elsewhere asking for money towards shipping this 'brave Knight's' body back to England so that he could be buried at his 'beloved Glastonbury'!
I was NOT responsible for sending out these Notices, one or two of which contained a fake signature in Bonky's own handwriting.
You really will have to try harder than that, "Demonologist"!
I also have Bonky discussing this matter on tape with myself, so he himself could verify the above.
Whoops, "Demonologist"!
David Farrant
I am trying hard to understand this. Two photographs widely available on the web show Manchester and Farrant fighting a "sword duel". One is an "action shot" of the two clashing swords. The other shows Farrant bending over a "fallen and bloodied" Manchester. There can be no doubt that it is David Farrant kneeling in the second photograph.
Are you saying these photos are not "posed" but instead document a "real swordfight" with "real injuries" (that would undoubtedly leave "real facial scars")?
Why would Sean Manchester agree to be photographed with David Farrant in such a silly context? Especially after having sussed him as an opportunist, fraud, demon worshipper, etc. ????
Let me clarify this Cat. The black and white photographs of myself and Bonky 'duelling' were taken in Highgate Wood in 1984 (in fact in a spot just opposite where I live) one evening. Four people were present at their taking: somebody called "Katrina", my second wife Colette and, of course Bonky and myself. These photographs were sent to City Limits magazine who published a couple of them in 1984.
The picture showing Bonky allegedly 'dead' and being covered by a coat was taken during the course of another publicised duel in 1978. I was not present when this picture was taken. The person shown in this picture was a friend of Bonky's (not myself) and it was NOT part of any film shoot, rather a bonky publicity stunt. The first time I saw this photograph was when I was shown it by the Daily Mirror and the picture had NOT been sent in by myself.
I asked Bonky at the time (how he was going to explain not being really dead) after having assumed to be by the Press. He said the end part of the story was to be that Bonky had only been assumed to have been 'dead' but he was 'nursed back to life' in a French Convent.
I also have Bonky discussing this on tape.
Hope this helps clarify that.
David Farrant
COME ON BONKY!
Well, com'on Bonky old fellow. Everyone is waiting!
David Farrant
All right. Fine. David Farrant is in at least one of the pictures WITH Sean Manchester. Why did Manchester permit himself to be photographed in a silly and obviously fake "duel"with a man he despised?
"The other shows Farrant bending over a 'fallen and bloodied' Manchester. There can be no doubt that it is David Farrant kneeling in the second photograph," claims John Baldry's Cat.
John Baldry's Cat's powers of observation leave something to be desired. Farrant is a weedy character with a pronounced stoop and unkempt, dirty hair. The actor holding the coat in the dramatisation from the movie is a good-looking, muscular actor with groomed, blond hair. They could not be more dissimilar!
On the day the announcement of Seán Manchester's demise appeared in Farrant's local press, courtesy of Farrant, Manchester was being interviewed on a London radio station. The fake "Memorial Fund" posters were a product of Farrant.
You need to ask what possible purpose it would serve for Seán Manchester to claim his own death while appearing on radio and television programmes? It makes absolutely no sense.
"The Duel" was not a regular cinema movie. It was a low budget movie using real actors that was circulated and shown in art-house theatres along with similar films made on a shoe-string.
The real duel with Farrant was not posed. It took place and was witnessed by two others. Katrina was certainly not one of them. The real duel lasted seconds before Farrant fell to the ground and capitulated without any injury. Farrant has written about this duel in the past and, although adding fabricated touches of his own, did not attempt to deny it was real. This sword fight and its outcome was covered in two London magazines who took it very seriously. The police became involved, but could find nobody willing to give a statement.
The fact is that Farrant ceased to fraudulently adopt the name of the British Occult Society after the real duel, which was one of the conditions if he lost (as publicised in the magazines). What was in it for Farrant? Publicity! It is always publicity for him.
What I find remarkable is how John Baldry's Cat has completely ignored the letter on headed prison notepaper from Farrant (calling himself “A D Farrow”) to the president of the British Occult Society, Seán Manchester, as found at these links:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_k7iAc57FwyE/Sc5EgG0ubOI/AAAAAAAAAEY/M7jxdhK7eWw/s1600-h/DFprisonletter1.jpg
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_k7iAc57FwyE/Sc5EZO4m3hI/AAAAAAAAAEQ/h6toaoM01X4/s1600-h/DFprisonletter2.jpg
(Missing words from the dog-eared and worn top of the second page are "... speak for me. I don't know if they have ...").
Farrant’s prison correspondence of August 1970 is solid evidence that all the claims he has subsequently made regarding his relationship with Seán Manchester and the British Occult Society are false.
This is of no interest to John Baldry's Cat because the agenda here is to mildly mock Farrant (as window dressing) in the pursuit of misrepresenting Seán Manchester.
This blog uses the excuse of claiming to be "satire" to peddle its malice against Seán Manchester.
Satire is poetic and ironic. This blog is neither. It is merely another platform for Farrant's poisonous propaganda.
OVER TO YOU "DEMONOLOGIST"
The duel with myself in 1984 was not ‘real’ but part of a publicity stunt manufactured by Bonky. Bonky told me he needed the pictures for a book he was writing on myself and the Highgate case, which is the only reason I went along with it. Bonky’s (then) girlfriend took the pictures in Highgate Wood and she obviously retained the negatives. I did not see the prints until after they had appeared in “City Limits” magazine after having been sent to them by Bonky.
It is interesting that Bonky mentions the London region interview (LBC). For this is exactly what I asked him on tape. I asked him how he could be claiming to be dead and then give a radio interview. He said that nobody could prove that it was him and told me ‘not to worry’ as he had the end of the story ‘all taken care of’. I was not actually ‘worried’ but more amused at his antics even though by this time things were getting ‘slightly out of hand’.
Regarding the ‘duel’ of 1978, people will have noticed how careful “Demonlogist” is being not to give any details of the film company. Why? If the film was shown publicly, why should he have any objection to this? It would irrefutably prove Bonky’s case . . . if it were true! So come on “Demonologist”. Name of the film production company; when and where the film was released etc.
As for the alleged ‘prison letter, this seems to have distinct shades of a similar bogus letter from ‘myself’ to Bonky around the same time. In this, I was apparently ‘begging Bonky’s help’ to protect me from a group of Satanists who had offered me money to ‘keep quiet’ [sic]. I repeatedly asked for the stamped and dated envelope of this letter to be provided, but it never was.
I would ask the same now “Demonologist” in the case of this ‘prison letter’. Can you produce the stamped and date-marked envelope in which this alleged letter arrived (which would surly have been kept if it was genuine). Well?
Over to you “Demonologist”.
David Farrant.
-"the agenda here is to mildly mock Farrant (as window dressing) in the pursuit of misrepresenting Seán Manchester."
"Mildly" mock Farrant? Excuse me, have you seen "Farrant Caught With Bogus TV Licence"? Or how about the excellent Photoshop work in "New Evidence Farrant May Be "6th Beatle"?
And for poetic, I thought "Bishop's Plans Go Down The Crapper" was classical satire and clever wordplay.
Demonologist, I did examine that letter on prison stationary. It may or may not be real. I honestly don't care.
What I'm wondering is what Sean Manchester and David Farrant talked about all those times they met. In prison visits. At "duels". At Highgate for "photo shoots". At Farrant's flat in Muswell Hill. At Manchester's flat on Holloway Road. Crikey, those two lads were together OFTEN. If Manchester immediately sussed him as someone to avoid, why did he keep meeting Farrant so many times????
"The duel with myself in 1984 was not ‘real’ but part of a publicity stunt manufactured by Bonky. Bonky told me he needed the pictures for a book he was writing on myself and the Highgate case, which is the only reason I went along with it," claims Farrant.
Then Farrant will have absolutely no problem producing evidence of this conversation on tape (as he supposedly taped everything)? This conversation, in actual fact, will never materialise because it did not take place. Farrant has written about the duel himself in the past and he did not claim it was anything other than real.
"Can you produce the stamped and date-marked envelope in which this alleged letter arrived (which would surly [sic] have been kept if it was genuine)?" asks Farrant.
An image of the envelope can be found at this link:
http://highgatevampire.blogspot.com/2009/08/prison-correspondence-from-lone-vampire.html
"What I'm wondering is what Sean Manchester and David Farrant talked about all those times they met. In prison visits. ... If Manchester immediately sussed him as someone to avoid, why did he keep meeting Farrant so many times????" asks John Baldry's Cat.
Seán Manchester has answered this in his published works far better than ever I could. There was only one prison visit when Seán Manchester visited Farrant (Brixton Prison in the late summer of 1970). When Farrant started to claim a fraudulent association with the British Occult Society it was decided to keep a close eye on him. When he claimed to be engaging in diabolical practices it was decided to keep an even closer eye on him.
Farrant led people to believe he was in contact with occultists and occult groups. Seán Manchester visited Farrant at his bed-sitting room in Muswell Hill on a number of occasions to get to the bottom of Farrant's boasts and allegations in the media. He told him whatever he felt was necessary to draw out information and learn what exactly was going on. This much can be gleaned from Seán Manchester's own writings.
It was found that Farrant was to all intents and purposes a lone publicity-seeker who believed in none of the things he boasted about in the press. The only occultist Farrant was genuinely in regular contact with was John Pope, but even Pope later declared Farrant to be a fraud in a recorded interview in 1987.
Seán Manchester did not meet Farrant that many times and, apart from the initial meeting at Highgate Cemetery and final meeting in Highgate Wood, only otherwise met at Farrant's coal bunker in Archway Road and bed-sitting room in Muswell Hill Road. There were no meetings elsewhere, certainly not at Seán Manchester's address.
There were no "photo shoots" as such. Incidental pictures were taken on just two occasions. These were the first meeting at Highgate Cemetery and a photographic record of the brief sword fight which clearly shows Farrant capitulating.
The number of meetings was probably determined by the increasing trouble Farrant caused with his false claims, never more so than during and after his notorious trials at the Old Bailey, and the skullduggery he was constantly engaging in at the expense of Seán Manchester who realised early on that in such circumstances you keep your friends close and your enemies closer.
DEMONOLOGY
To begin with “Demonologist” I do not live in a bed-sit, as you are well aware. When Bonky visited me, I always used to sit him in the kitchen where the secret tape recorder was set up. He was aware of the other rooms as I often went to get books or other material from them. This may be only a trivial point but it shows that if “Demonololist” is deliberating misrepresenting true facts here, how many other things is he deliberately misrepresenting or lying about?
The purpose of bonky’s visits was not to ‘get information out of me’, it was to keep me up to date on his numerous publicity exploits – the duel being just one of them.
I said ‘the duel was real’, “Demonologist”!!?? Are you really trying to be serious? The piece I wrote on the Highgate Wood duel was just pure satire, and nobody was intended to believe it. Quite the opposite: it was meant to show just how ridiculous Bonky’s claims could be.
For example, I remember I wrote (I do not have the thing to hand now) that Bonky was wearing effeminate white tights and at one point during the duel, he tripped on a tree root and I took advantage of this dilemma and laid the flat of my sword against his seat . . . hard. I continued that he yelled, then completely lost his balance but that I did not take ‘advantage’ of this, but allowed him to get back on his feet.
Have you got some sort of screw loose in that demonic brain of yours “Demonologist”? how can you possibly state that I was being serious?
But perhaps that is being a little unkind to you as lets remember you weren’t even there were you!? Well, of course you weren’t. What am I saying! But the point is Bonky would hardly be like to tell anybody – including yourself – about such an embarrassing situation. You really will have to try harder than that “Demonologist”!
Come to think of it “Demonologist”, you have given me an idea. I might just find that satirical piece and put a couple of extracts up so people can make up their own minds.
Bonky obviously decided not to tell you about his prison visits “Demonologst”. Seems he’s forgotten to tell you a lot of things from 35-40 years ago! Never mind, you can’t expect Bonky to disclose everything to you, can you!?
David Farrant
"I remember I wrote (I do not have the thing to hand now) that Bonky was wearing effeminate white tights and at one point during the duel, he tripped ...," lies Farrant.
Seán Manchester was wearing black trousers, as all the pictures clearly indicate; including those published in City Limits magazine.
I find it amusing that Farrant unimaginatively copies others all the time owing to the fact he hasn't an original bone in his body. If it's not Ecker (by repeatedly using Ecker's term "bulldust") it's John Baldry's Cat (by claiming something is "satire" when it is clearly nothing of the kind).
If the description Farrant offers of the sword fight was what he is now claiming, how did City Limits magazine write their article with photographs stating that Farrant conceded defeat and would, as a consequence, cease to use the nomenclature "British Occult Society"? If it was a "satirical" farce, as now being alleged, surely Farrant would have challenged City Limits and demanded a retraction? But he did not. He supported what they wrote in their article and failed to contradict what really happened for decades afterwards.
"I might just find that satirical piece and put a couple of extracts up so people can make up their own minds," threatens Farrant.
But all Farrant will do is write something anew, which proves absolutely nothing. He will not be able to find something he wrote "satirically" which is self-evidently from the past, as the City Limits articles (there were two) are from the past, dated (as evidence), and archived on public record.
There is one further point, if Farrant was part of a farsical non-event worthy only of satire, he clearly deceived the media, not least City Limits magazine, and also the public by misleading them into believing the duel was real.
Ironically, the duel was real. Farrant is lying now in yet another attempt to rewrite history.
"Bonky obviously decided not to tell you about his prison visits Demonologst [sic]," claims Farrant.
Seán Manchester cannot relay something that did not occur. Farrant is lying. Where is the record of any visits other than the one to Brixton Prison in August 1970? Surely prisons have a register of some sort? Moreover, why would Seán Manchester need to lie about making prison visits? And while on the subject of Farrant's remand at Brixton Prison, he previously asked:
"Can you produce the stamped and date-marked envelope in which this alleged letter arrived (which would surly [sic] have been kept if it was genuine)?"
I produced the franked and dated envelope at this link:
http://highgatevampire.blogspot.com/2009/08/prison-correspondence-from-lone-vampire.html
Farrant fell silent, as he always does when confronted with evidence.
Let's not forget that this prison correspondence gives the absolute lie to Farrant's claims about the British Occult Society and the relationship of Seán Manchester to both the Society and to Farrant.
Farrant's "vampire hunting" scandal at Highgate Cemetery in 1970 was followed by his "necromancy" with Victoria Jervis on Hallowe'en 1972 in a Barnet churchyard. After he was ditched by Victoria Jervis, he started publishing nude photographs of her alongside articles he wrote about witchcraft and to compliment sundry press shenanigans he was complicit in.
He now falsely claims that someone else supplied the magazines with nude pictures of her while he was inside prison.
Setting aside that Farrant had an agent on the outside negotiating his articles and pictures for him, he continued to sell nude photographs of Victoria Jervis to newspapers AFTER his release from prison.
That little detail seems to have escaped him.
And, of course, Martine de Sacy, another unfortunate girlfriend of his who was duped into his phoney witchcraft stunts, accused Farrant of doing the same thing to her, as revealed in the News of the World, 30 June 1974.
The pictures on Don Ecker's site speak for themselves - Sean and Farrant were once tight as ticks.
Answer me this Deme, how do you feel about Eric Nuzum's opinion of Sean Manchester? That Sean was a vampire hunting Miss Cleo? And that if there was a vampire, it was Sean Manchester and David Farrant - they drained every drop of publicity they could from the media hoax?
FALSE REPORT
City Limits magazine did NOT report that the 1984 duel was over any claims to do with the British Occult Society, poor confused “Demonologist”.
They published a picture of myself and Bonky holding swords and said the duel was to prove leadership in the British Occult Movement.
What the magazine said was (to avoid further confusion) . . . “Well, nobody could accuse the two gents above of allowing their word to sleep in their hand. On the left [Bonky], on the right David Farrant, the two contenders of the British Occult movement.” Etc.
[City Limits July 6 – 12 1984]
As this story and accompanying photographs were sent to CL by Bonky, I had no way of knowing what their story would be. But the magazine certainly took the whole thing as a laugh – indeed as I myself did later.
You say this “Demonologist” . . .
“Setting aside that Farrant had an agent on the outside negotiating his articles and pictures for him, he continued to sell nude photographs of Victoria Jervis to newspapers AFTER his release from prison”
This is completely untrue. But in this case, I presume you won’t mind giving us all the name/s of the newspaper or magazine where these photographs appeared (and the dates, of course). Well, “Demomologist”? We are all waiting!
As to your link to the ‘prison envelope’ ‘Demomologist”, this hasn’t given me evidence of anything. It doesn’t work on my computer. Try putting the link into blue, “Demonologist” so I can access it. Then maybe I can comment on it.
Bonky visited myself 2 or 3 times in London prisons in 1974. He was using an alias (as usual!) but he gave my (then) girlfriend’s address in Finsbury Park in North London. Bonky also used to visit her there. Bonky also wrote me over a dozen letters to various prisons until my release in 1976. These letters were all hand-written in blue felt tip pen and contained my girlfriend’s address inside. These visits (and the sender of these letters) are all on prison record.
You really will have to try harder so desperately trying to ‘disown’ myself, “Demonologist”.
The tapes I have are conclusive evidence that you are now trying to evade the truth.
Over to you “Demonologist”
David Farrant
PS And don’t ‘conveniently forget’ to name that newspaper/s or magazine/s
Dear Vampire Hunters and Occult Investigators, if I may have a quick word? As our dear Pussy ... Cat blog host sez ... on Dark Natterings, you might wish to make a quick visit and read my newest posting ... Dagmar Krauss, VAMPYR Hunter ... and see how our wacky Yanks do it...
I have to admit that his vampire looks much more frightening than that poor tired Highgate Vampire does. And Dagmar's prose is also very entertaining ... much saltier and ah, shall I say, more to the point? At anyrate I do believe it might be worth your while to step back a moment from your feuding and give Dagmar a glance. Perhaps he can point our British Cousins in the ah, shall I say, proper direction?
Don Ecker
- "Bonky also wrote me over a dozen letters to various prisons until my release in 1976. "
Why would Manchester be writing letters to a man he despised? A man in prison? I could understand him writing one letter. But over a dozen? For over two years?
I'd like to read these all letters.
"City Limits magazine did NOT report that the 1984 duel was over any claims to do with the British Occult Society, poor confused Demonologist," claims Farrant.
They were talking about the British Occult Society. They might have used the term "British Occult Movement" but everyone knows what they meant. The British Occult Society was at the heart of the public dispute between David Farrant and Seán Manchester, as everyone knew and the newspapers of the day exploited at every opportunity. It really is splitting hairs to claim that City Limits was not talking about the BOS; especially as nothing called the "British Occult Movement" existed whereas Seán Manchester's British Occult Society was constantly being written about with Farrant constantly trying to exploit it for his own publicity.
Like the Hornsey Journal who used their own photographer and even provided Farrant with a sword, City Limits used material of their own.
"As to your link to the ‘prison envelope’ Demomologist [sic], this hasn’t given me evidence of anything. It doesn’t work on my computer. Try putting the link into blue, Demonologist so I can access it. Then maybe I can comment on it," says Farrant.
Farrant should try copying and pasting the link into his browser as the html is not active on comments made here. Try this link:
http://highgatevampire.blogspot.com
As previously stated, Seán Manchester visited Farrant just the once in prison. This visit occurred in August 1970 when Farrant was being held on remand at Brixton Prison following his "vampire hunting" escapade on the night of 17 August 1970 at Highgate Cemetery. There were no other visits made by Seán Manchester and no evidence of any other visits will be forthcoming.
"Why would Manchester be writing letters to a man he despised? A man in prison? I could understand him writing one letter. But over a dozen? For over two years?" asks John Baldry's Cat.
Exactly. He wouldn't. In fact, he did not write so much as one letter, as stated by him in "Aftermath of the Highgate Vampire." The only prison correspondence was from Farrant to Seán Manchester. There was none whatsoever from Seán Manchester to Farrant.
What Farrant so conveniently forgets is that he is on tape, secretly recorded by Tony Hill during the period Farrant slept in Hill's coal bunker. These recordings from early 1970 conclusively show that Farrant attempted to hoax a ghost story in his local press with himself at its centre. The recordings obviously occurred in Hill's flat because Hill's wife can be heard on some of them as they all drink tea, light cigarettes and talk about faking letters to support Farrant's foolish ghost story. Nava Grunberg was also involved in the scheme. Farrant used her Hampstead Lane address for some of his bogus letters to the press.
"secretly recorded by Tony Hill during the period Farrant slept in Hill's coal bunker."
Holy wiretapping Batman! You Brits sure do play fast and loose with the law!
Answer my question please. I'm tired of hearing about Farrant, Tony Hill and the coal bunker. It's as interesting as a wet dishtowel.
As you and Sean have zero tolerance for criticism, what do you think of Eric Nuzum's verdict on the Highgate Affair? You can't blame Farrant this time as he contacted neither of you and did his own research. And this guy is on national radio. The Highgate Feud is becoming well known im America now. Do you like the coverage?
WE ARE WAITING!
Bonky DID visit me in prison "Demonologist" just as he wrote to me. I don't really blame Bonky for not revealing this to you and he is obviously reading this and can see all the deliberate distortions you have been spreading in your ignorance of the true situation. He will have seen that you only just said this:
"Setting aside that Farrant had an agent on the outside negotiating his articles and pictures for him, he continued to sell nude photographs of Victoria Jervis to newspapers AFTER his release from prison."
Now Bonky of all people knows that this is simply untrue. And he would not have told you this because he knows that it is untrue.
I asked you to supply the names and dates of these newspapers or magazines. You have not done so as I predicted you would not. Why?
Because its a blatant lie, that's why, and Bonky knows it is. So I can not really blame Bonky for not giving you any facts that you could further distort.
You can prove your entire case here "Demonologist". Just give us the name and date of just one newspaper or magazine.
If you fail to do so, you are just proving yourself to be a liar, and everything else you say really 'falls flat'!
So prove your statement here now "Demonologist". After all, you wouldn't want to give Bonky the impression that you have just been inventing things, would you?!
Don't make me keep reminding you "Demonologist". Lets see you back up your ststement. We are waiting.
David Farrant
Change of subject: did David or Sean Manchester ever submit their various scribblings about the Highgate Vampire to well known publishers, were they rejected, and if so, why?
"As to your link to the ‘prison envelope’ Demomologist [sic], this hasn’t given me evidence of anything," says Farrant, claiming he cannot read it because of his computer not working properly.
Farrant should copy and paste the following link into his browser and then comment on the prison correspondence he sent to Seán Manchester in August 1970:
http://highgatevampire.blogspot.com
"Who was the first to release a book on the subject of the Highate Vampire? David Farrant or Sean Manchester?" asks John Baldry's Cat.
Seán Manchester's Highgate Vampire contribution to the anthology "The Vampire's Bedside Companion" (Leslie Frewin Books, 1975), which included pieces by his close colleagues Peter Underwood and Devendra P Varma, was the first published account. Seán Manchester's coverage of the Highgate Vampire case is approximately one fifth of the book, which was reprinted in 1976 by Coronet. The only person to have written a book about the case is Seán Manchester with "The Highgate Vampire" (British Occult Society, 1985; Gothic Press, 1991). Farrant produced a small pamphlet in 1991 titled "Beyond the Highgate Vampire" which devoted about a dozen pages to his self-contradictory fabrications. His effort included lengthy extracts of hundreds of words from the text of Seán Manchester's book and photographs (with incorrectly attributed captions) that infringe copyright. Kev Demant commented that the stolen material was the only interesting content in Farrant's self-published pamphlet.
"Did David [Farrant] or Sean Manchester ever submit their various scribblings about the Highgate Vampire to well known publishers, were they rejected, and if so, why?" asks John Baldry's Cat.
A number of major publishing houses were very interested in Seán Manchester's manuscript. Two of them were even ready to go ahead and one of them offered a provisional contract, but with conditions that Seán Manchester was unwilling to accept. One of the amendments to his manuscript that was found unacceptable by him was the excising of all reference to Farrant whom the publisher saw as superfluous to the account. The British Occult Society published the manuscript intact, as it was thought necessary to explain Farrant's part at the periphery of incidents at Highgate Cemetery due to the unwanted publicity Farrant had attracted with his court cases and attention-seeking stunts. If the same book was being written today, Seán Manchester would probably not mention Farrant who, if he is known at all (I've lost count of all the people who have said they would never have heard of Farrant but for reading Seán Manchester's book) it is because of the success of "The Highgate Vampire" which is about to be turned into a major cinema film.
Demonologist:
"the success of "The Highgate Vampire" which is about to be turned into a major cinema film."
You mean Asa Bailey's film?
I've heard this since 2006, yet no one in the industry will touch this story. Red Monkey Films dropped THV option.
So tell us what studio has the rights to THV? Who will play Manchester in the film?
Again, what do you think of Eric Nuzum's verdict on Manchester - that both he and David are the same type of publicity hound?
"One of the amendments to his manuscript that was found unacceptable by him was the excising of all reference to Farrant whom the publisher saw as superfluous to the account."
So even Manchester acknowledges how integral David is to the Highgate Vampire Case?
Interesting.
Manchester's first Highgate Vampire book has about 60% of its material devoted to David Farrant. Yet we are to understand that Farrant is the copyright infringer?
FOR EVERYONE
For everybody’s information the first major book that appeared on the Highgate Vampire case was by Basil Copper in 1973 under the title “The Vampire in Legend, Fact and Literature” by Robert Hale in London in hardback. This book was republished by “Corgi” in paperback in1975 under the title “The Vampire in Legend, Fact and Art [ISBN 0 552 09802 7].
This book contained a long chapter on myself and our investigation into the Highgate ‘vampire’ case, although Bonky was not even mentioned (sorry!).
In the short introduction it says:
“In the field of horror, Basil Copper is widely acclaimed as an outstanding writer. His macabre short stories have appeared in leading anthologies in many parts of the world and his work has been translated into Swedish, Danish, German, Spanish and Italian. He has been a journalist for over 30 years and for 14 years he was the news editor of a county newspaper. An expert on the history of the cinema, he is one of the leading collectors of rare vintage films in this country.”
His chapter deals with my arrest in Highgate Cemetery in 1970 and goes on to detail our findings in that case.
Bonky had not got around inventing his vampire fiction at this time and other people who were making all sorts of claims about that case were really regarded as ‘non-entities’.
Hope this clarifies this for everyone.
David Farrant
PS Don’t go away yet “Demonologist”, you have yet to name the newspapers or magazines where you stated I was still selling nude photographs of Vicki even AFTER I came out of prison. What’s up? A cat got your tongue?! (Sorry Cat1)
I found the Basil Copper book on Amazon, you can search in it on line, and I saw no mention of Sean Manchester in it but there is plenty of coverage of David Farrant. Score one for David?
"You mean Asa Bailey's film?" asks John Baldry's Cat.
Asa Bailey's proposed film production titled "The Highgate Vampire - The Movie" is nothing more than exploitation of the name of the book "The Highgate Vampire" by Seán Manchester. The movie will contain no content (beyond the book's title) pertaining to the history, happenings, investigation and account of the case in the book and previous television film documentaries based on Seán Manchester's book. Anyone expecting to find a portrayal of the Highgate Vampire case and investigation thereof in this rip-off production will be sadly disappointed. Asa Bailey has never made a movie before and is yet to actually produce this one (it is a legal minefield owing to his hijacking of the title of the book). He normally produces advertisments and short promotional films.
The cinema movie I mentioned is to have a British cast (Bailey's is an American cast) and will be true to the atmosphere and feel of the period (Bailey's is based in the present and not forty years ago).
"Red Monkey Films dropped THV option," claims John Baldry's Cat.
Red Monkey Films have never had anything to do with Seán Manchester's "The Highgate Vampire." They wanted to make a short television film about the Kirklees mystery, but failed to involve Seán Manchester and it was abandoned. They only managed to film (on video camera) Barbara Green, Gareth Medway, David Farrant and his then girlfriend Catherine Fearnley performing a pseudo-occult ritual over the Kirklees grave after dark. The very fact that Red Monkey Films involved Farrant would be enough to end any possibility of Seán Manchester making a contribution.
"Tell us what studio has the rights to THV? Who will play Manchester in the film?" asks John Baldry's Cat.
I cannot answer either question.
"What do you think of Eric Nuzum's verdict on Manchester - that both he and David are the same type of publicity hound?" asks John Baldry's Cat.
I haven't read anything about or by Eric Nuzum and have no idea who he is. There are any number of people out there like Eric Nuzum who have an opinion. I really have no interest in their opinions, as I am sure they have no interest in mine.
"... ['One of the amendments to his manuscript that was found unacceptable by him was the excising of all reference to Farrant whom the publisher saw as superfluous to the account.'] - So even Manchester acknowledges how integral David [Farrant] is to the Highgate Vampire Case?" alleges Anthony Hogg (aka "The [Australian] Overseer").
Clearly Anthony Hogg did not read as carefully as he should what I previously stated, which is:
"It was thought necessary [by Seán Manchester] to explain Farrant's part at the periphery of incidents at Highgate Cemetery due to the unwanted publicity Farrant had attracted with his court cases and attention-seeking stunts."
Periphery means "outer surrounding region" or "external boundary" and "incidents" means "subordinate or accessory events."
So, from Farrant's part on the external boundary of subordinate and accessory events, Anthony Hogg extrapolates an acknowledgement of how integral Farrant is to the Highgate Vampire case. I think not.
"Manchester's first Highgate Vampire book has about 60% of its material devoted to David Farrant. Yet we are to understand that Farrant is the copyright infringer?" writes someone else.
Even if the first book was entirely about Farrant it does not follow that any of it infringes copyright. However, the first edition of "The Highgate Vampire" (British Occult Society, 1985) devotes just four pages of a short chapter about independent vampire hunters to Farrant. The images of Farrant among tombs with a cross and stake, emerging from a tomb and pointing to the spot in Highgate Cemetery where he claimed to have seen a vampire do not belong to Farrant. Though photographs of Farrant "vampire hunting" were orginally take by Tony Hill, the exclusive copyright was signed over to Seán Manchester prior to their publication and belongs to him and nobody else.
The same commentator claims:
"I found the Basil Copper book on Amazon, you can search in it on line, and I saw no mention of Sean Manchester in it but there is plenty of coverage of David Farrant."
"The Vampire: In Legend, Fact and Art" (Corgi, 1973) by Basil Copper contains 222 pages of which less than five are devoted to Farrant. There is very little in Basil Copper's coverage of Farrant that Farrant would support.
Copper states: "David Farrant had spoken of his plans to go to the cemetery to put a stake through the heart of a vampire which was lurking in the graveyard."
Copper even reproduces the notorious Barrie Simmons' article from the Evening News which gives the lie to Farrant's later revisionist claims.
Copper ends his short commentary on Farrant by reporting: "... though Mr Simmons and Mr Farrant didn't actually track a vampire to its lair, Mr Farrant remained undismayed. There was always another night and he was convinced that the vampire slept by day in the catacombs. 'He has to be destroyed. He is evil,' he said."
Basil Copper based his brief mention of Highgate Cemetery to court reports in newspapers (and other quotes of Farrant also in the press), whereas little was to be found about Seán Manchester after his television inteviews in 1970 because the latter tried to avoid all unnecessary publicity during the case which was far from solved at the time Copper was taking an interest for his paperback in 1972.
The Demonologist blustered""Tell us what studio has the rights to THV? Who will play Manchester in the film?" asks John Baldry's Cat.
I cannot answer either question."
Because there is no film in the works.
"Asa Bailey has never made a movie before and is yet to actually produce this one (it is a legal minefield owing to his hijacking of the title of the book)."
Wrong again. Sean does not own the words "The Highgate Vampire." Evidently Sean is as vapid over trademarks as he is copyright in general. Sean never even bothered to buy the domain name.
"I haven't read anything about or by Eric Nuzum and have no idea who he is. There are any number of people out there like Eric Nuzum who have an opinion. I really have no interest in their opinions, as I am sure they have no interest in mine."
You should be interested. This guy is a pop-culture journalist and program manager of National Public Radio in Washington, DC. Of course, he is someone nationally recognized and successful - you and Sean are not. You are an anonymous troll and Sean is a marginal ne'er do well with mental problems.
"As to your link to the ‘prison envelope’ Demomologist [sic], this hasn’t given me evidence of anything," protests Farrant, unable to see the envelope only because he didn't copy and paste the following link into his browser:
http://highgatevampire.blogspot.com
Sufficient time has surely now elapsed for Farrant to have seen the envelope (bearing his handwriting) in which he sent correspondence from Brixton Prison to Seán Manchester in August 1970?
Farrant's silence on this matter is deafening!
This correspondence, which can be read at the same link, paints a very different picture to the one Farrant now wants people to believe.
FOR EVERYONE
It is a matter of public record that the very first time the name “The Highgate Vampire” appeared in print was when the English Press wrote this in connection with my arrest at Highgate Cemetery over the ‘ghost’ investigation. On August 19th 1970 the Sun newspaper ran the headline . . . “Caught on the moonlight trail of the Highgate Vampire”. The London Evening News shortly followed with the headline . . . “Midnight vigil for the Highgate Vampire” [October 16th 1970].
The term “The Highgate Vampire” had not been used before this: although certain people were to later copy this name for their own dubious purposes.
But lets be clear; it was the Press who adopted this title, not myself – albeit other people later copied it.
FOR “Demonologist”:
You have already answered the matter of the prison correspondence – by deliberately lying about this. You have denied writing to myself in prison; notwithstanding that I have over a dozen letters from Bonky (many sent to different prisons) IN HIS HANDWRITING. On top of this I have tape recordings where Bonky can be heard discussing some of this correspondence. How can I be expected to discuss this correspondence when Bonky is now deliberately lying about it. These letters most certainly DO present a very different picture from the one you are trying to present here. That is certainly the reason why Bonky is now desperately attempting to deny this.
I am not in the business of lying “Demonologist”. But I can’t be bothered to argue with people you are.
Now, you still have not answered my public question.
You previously stated here that I ‘had continued’ to sell nude pictures of ‘Vicki’ AFTER I was released from prison. YOUR statement “Demonologist” – not mine.
I have asked to give us the names and dates of the newspapers or magazines where these photographs appeared. So far, YOUR silence has been deafening!
So I am just giving you the chance to prove this statement, “Demomologist”! I would have thought you would have been only too quick to do so . . . IF it was true.
Well, “Demonologist”? For the fourth time of asking!
David Farrant
Firstly, David, you're really clutching at straws there.
Regardless of whether or not the press coined the term "Highgate Vampire", the reference to the "entity" being a vampire was first suggested by Manchester (publicly, at least) in February 27, 1970.
You also hopped on board about a week later, agreeing to the possibility of the theory.
So, regardless of who used the explicit term, "Highgate Vampire", I'm afraid you were beaten to the punch.
I find it funny that you endorsed Copper's book, considering what it says of your so-called "investigations" involving stakes and crucifixes.
Since you're big on demanding evidence though, how's that Varma correspondence coming along? Been waiting for that.
Hi Deme,
Thanks for (repeatedly) referring to my real name, while still not having the guts to reveal your own.
I think you needed to read a bit more into what you wrote, as it's quite clear how integral David is to the Highgate Vampire Case, if Manchester was unwilling to omit references to him from his work, thus costing him a deal with a publisher.
Of course, Manchester's Aftermath of the Highgate Vampire dealt quite heavily with David.
Oh, and Manchester happens to follow the David-obsessed blog, In the Shadow of the Highgate Vampire.
As do you.
Very strange acts for someone who regards Dave as a "non-entity".
"Because there is no film in the works," claims Anonymous.
Time will obviously tell. I merely wanted to distance the film based on Seán Manchester's book with another currently in pre-production which has adopted the same title as Seán Manchester's book in an attempt to attract money from backers. The Asa Bailey rip-off with an American cast, however, will only appeal to vampiroids and those who like loud pop music blaring behind yet another slasher movie with no real story to tell.
"You have already answered the matter of the prison correspondence," Farrant explains.
But Farrant patently has not. His prison correspondence offers a very different version of how things were in the summer of 1970. It totally contradicts what he now claims was the relationship between himself and the British Occult Society, also the relationship between himself and Seán Manchester. It is in his own handwriting on prison notepaper with the franked and dated envelope provided for inspection, as requested by Farrant.
The letter and its envelope can be viewed here:
http://highgatevampire.blogspot.com
How can Farrant comment on this document? It is obviously authentic and clearly shows him to be a liar.
I have letters that Bonky wrote to me to several different prisons in his own handwriting. Any expert could easily identify this handwriting as it is the same as appears on many other letters Bonky sent me to my home address after 1976, many of which he signed in his own name.
Bonky is the one who is clearly lying about this correspondence and, as I said, there is no point in arguing with calculating liars. I don't have to anyway: I have the letters and I have the tapes where Bonky admits this himself.
You have deliberately given disinformation here "Demonologist".
You accused me of selling nude photographs of somebody to New Witchcraft magazine when I was in prison. I explained that these photographs had been stolen from boxes stored in my old flat when I was in prison. I said I have a tape of Bonky telling me how he sent photographs to New Witchcraft during this same period.
You then said that I had contiued to sell nude photographs of this same person after I had been released from prison.
So I then asked you to suppy the names and dates of these newspapers that these photographs had appeared in.
Obviously realising you had made a 'serious slip', you are attempting to avoid this question. Why? Because you know, "Demonologist" your answer could only prove yourself to be a liar. That's why.
A more important thing is here though, everyone: if Bonky has lied about this issue, how many more things has he lied about and represented here?
Make up your own minds, good people!
David Farrant
Deme mumbled:
"Time will obviously tell. I merely wanted to distance the film based on Seán Manchester's book with another currently in pre-production which has adopted the same title as Seán Manchester's book in an attempt to attract money from backers. The Asa Bailey rip-off with an American cast, however, will only appeal to vampiroids and those who like loud pop music blaring behind yet another slasher movie with no real story to tell."
Sure. I'd love to see some film company buy the rights to Sean's book. After that, he will loose control of the story because that's how major films work. Then he and his Greek chorus of sock puppets can weep into the wind at every script change until the corporation's lawyers shut them up.
BTW Deme: Asa Bailey's film isn't all that bad. I guess you've not been to the movies lately. His movie is what people will pay to see. Giant spiders and heroic Byron posers are not - unless the film is a comedy. That might sell.
Right, ok, so now you're implying that Manchester, himself, wrote the correspondence that Deme links to.
Why don't you post up the other examples of Manchester's correspondence, Dave?
And while you're at it, have a go with the Varma stuff, too.
I am not implying anything Overseer - just giving you the facts.
Here is an 'earlyish' letter from Bonky dealing woth prison visits. It was written in his own handwriting remember:
"Dear David,
Hop you are well and in good spirits. It was good to see you recently – let me know when I can see you again but make the visiting order for my sister, Diana, as well.
I’ve spoken to Eddie about the proposed motorway through your apartment and he doesn’t seem to believe its taking place. I need much more to go on. Otherwise things are not shaping up too badly in the outside world but I can discuss all this with you in the next visit.
Keep on working on your autobiography – not forgettingtransmogrification. See you soon. Love, John.. xx Queens Drive, London N4" (Address writing in full)
Handwritten sent to Wormwood Scrubs; Undated; Postmarked Thanet, Kent, 3 October 1974
Happy Overseer??!!
David (Farrant)
"Asa Bailey's film isn't all that bad," claims Anonymous.
Bailey's film has not yet been produced, much less has it been released. Anonymous' view is definitely not shared by the overwhelming majority of commentators who have seen the pre-production clips which Bailey has bombarded web networks with.
"I am not implying anything Overseer - just giving you the facts. Here is an 'earlyish' letter from Bonky dealing woth [sic] prison visits. ... [Farrant's text for the fraudulent correspondence follows] ..." says the man who has attempted to forge more documents pertaining to Seán Manchester than I've had hot dinners. Seán Manchester even reproduced one of Farrant's pathetic curses, which Farrant attempted to attribute to him, in "From Satan To Christ" (Holy Grail, 1988).
For Farrant's edification: a "fact" is something that is real and certainly known to have occurred or be true, ie precise information whose existence cannot be ignored. It is not a puerile forgery pertaining to be something it is not which will fail to stand up to any proper examination.
Farrant's prison correspondence has been examined by experts (as has the handwritten note delivered to the offices of the BOS by Farrant which he now claims to be "phoney"), and they are absolutely satisfied that both Farrant's note and prison correspondence are authentic and genuine. Both note and correpondence offer a completely different version of how things were in the summer of 1970 regarding Farrant's relationship with the British Occult Society and Seán Manchester.
Farrant's note to the British Occult Society can be viewed here:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_k7iAc57FwyE/Sc5EzEb7Y2I/AAAAAAAAAEg/m5xcBVUnskc/s1600-h/DFletter.jpg
His prison correspondence to Seán Manchester can be viewed here:
http://highgatevampire.blogspot.com
KEEP DIGGING "DEMONOLOGIST"!
FOR EVERYONE,
So now I am apparently been accused of ‘forging’ letters by “Demonologist” – in fact, a ‘fraud’ himself who has not even got the courage to disclose his true identity.
But him aside, one of the first letters I received from Bonky was sent to Brixton prison when I was on remand awaiting Trial on ‘witchcraft ‘offences’. It was dated March 4th 1974 and bore the postmark “Southgate”.
It is a long letter and I will not produce it in its entirety here. But the first paragraph is very relevant as it discloses as important fact about bonky’s prison visits. It reads:
“Dear David,
Circumstances will not allow an immediate V. [Visit] Shall try and manage it soon though. Trust K [Khris] will take care of your needs in respect of items wanted. No need to worry about K – nothing brought up as you think. As you say, K is in the dark and though has her own ideas, I have left these unaltered. Had to use K with regard to Black Moon message due to urgency.”
[The letter was signed “George”]
Now the ‘K’ Bonky is referring to was a (then) girlfriend I had called Khris. She was a Polish girl and had a flat in Highgate.
The point here is that Bonky often used to visit her here whilst I was in prison. This was with my full consent but most importantly, Khris was fully aware of Bonky’s visits to myself in prison. She also used to visit me herself and I received independent accounts from both of them about any ‘news’ and what had been discussed.
Khris herself could confirm this. She first met ‘Bonky’ when I introduced them at my flat in Highgate in 1973.
If “Demonologist” chooses to dig himself any deeper with his flagrant denials of the truth, he should not be surprised if his ‘hole’ just collapses on top of him! For there were many other witnesses as well who Bonky mentions in his correspondence who “Demonologist” could not be aware of if Bonky has chosen not to tell him about them.
Well, all this was 35 years ago after all so it all invites confusion.
But lucky I kept all the correspondence!
David Farrant
Deme squealed:
"Asa Bailey's film isn't all that bad," claims Anonymous.
Bailey's film has not yet been produced, much less has it been released. Anonymous' view is definitely not shared by the overwhelming majority of commentators who have seen the pre-production clips which Bailey has bombarded web networks with."
Asa Bailey's film is in post production and should be released in 2010. what overwhelming comments Deme? Those you put up on YouTube until Asa kicked the Manchester/Farrant show off and closed comments. Maybe you should revisit some of the newest trailers on YouTube. Lots of positive reviews as Bailey signed Five Finger Death to sing "The Bleeding." And he produced the music video tie in - MTV here it comes. It already made the Spike Network here in the States.
"Bombarding web networks" is how it's done today, stupid. It's called "marketing."
Is Sean going to do any of that? Or is he going to rant and rave over any criticism as usual. This will be great to see because when one sells the rights to a film they have to shut up. That means Sean and his sock puppets like you will have to stop haunting the internet. you'll have a gag order in place. Maybe this major cinema event will be a good thing. I can't wait for the reviews to pour in from the major outlets. I don't think you or poor Sean can take that much heat.
Deme, you crack me up! First of all, I'm not female. You need to stop obsessing over people on your "enemies" list. One day you are going to get the wrong person and their husband is going show up at your door and clean your clock. You may not defend your wife much, but American men are good at that sort of thing.
Secondly, because someone thinks Sean is full of shit does not mean they are "friends" with David. Personally, though David is more cooperative of the two of you, at the end of the day there is no concrete evidence to back up either party.
Lastly, no ranting and raving? Perhaps all this keyboarding is giving you cognitive problems as you age. Let me refresh your memory of those you harassed on line who still have the archives up:
Alex Lucard
amcgltd
Fortean Times
A myriad of Paranormal and Vampire forums
and of course those who were harassed in person:
Rosemary Ellen Guiley
Jeanne Youngson
Ramsey Campbell
Dr. Ellis
... and the list goes on.
"All I am aware of to date are legal notices sworn by him against those who steal his intellectual property and infringe his photographic images. That is not unreasonable and most certainly does not constitute "ranting and raving over any criticism." "
And that is his right to do so. But Sean must understand that as a public figure and that is what an author,lecturer, talking head on documentaries is, many of his images can be used under Fair Use in the US. You've harassed the poor Overseer and chased him from service to service for reporting the truth and using images legally. You my not like him, but he is impartial and fair. It's a shame a man your age will bully a young guy just for spite.
All that said, if I were Sean and was looking for financial backers for a film, I'd rein in the VRS sock puppet cut and paste hate machine. Movies may be art, but first they are business. And in these troubled times someone with Sean's history of harassing people who do him the favor of writing about him will raise red flags.
One bit of advice from an American, those Yanks you hate - "you catch more flies with honey" - be more cooperative and less venomous and more people will have a favorable view of his version of the Highgate story. One other - "there's no thing as bad publicity." If Sean is going into the movie racket, he needs to repeat that like a mantra.
Just FYI...
This is not Manchester; SINCE S. MANCHESTER IS A PRIEST--debating professionally via the title for credibility sake...It is professional to use 'title' or you don't command the respect of the person-student-lay person in the forum and it can get out of hand--(this is just common sense), for Christians or those interested in the occult /paranormal underneath the Sheperd; I haven't known any of them more than 3-4 years but I can clearly identify who's doing the writing... and if you can't at this point your credibility about all you claim is just not there...who's all on this frickin blog ...who posts as "anonymous"....is that A-Hogg from Hogg's blog......who's gotta be anonymous here---due to "fear" ??
be a man
so let me get this straight--DF feels a "magical force"...F_____are you or are you not a witch-satanist as you have claimed-- ?? and A-Hogg is participating in a flirtatious relationship with you because he's suppose to be a Christian and he's not suppose to have intercourse or ANY relationship with you....if you are, in fact a self-proclaimed witch, well, a REAL witch or satanist wouldn't be on all these juvenile d_____f____blogs --he'd be PRACTICING HIS CRAFT; so what's the deal F___ are you or aren't you a whatever you claim to be and I'm surprised by this point you haven't been slapped off your puny feet and literally kicked into oblivion----or into the wall by your dark master (if you really have one)....
you use grunts here....that's why I told AH he's become a spiritual fag by having spiritual UNION with you--no matter how distant you are separated by the ocean in the 'physical'--he doesn't have enough discernment to comprehend that Christians aren't suppose to have ANY interface or communication or surface relationship with unbelievers-- including a rebellious self-proclaimed WITCH, unless Hogg is ministering or preaching or combating "evil" in it's truest form; Hogg's main reason for existence to to preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ TO YOU and warning your pig-headed dumb ass ---before you die--or,that by 2012 the shit is gonna hit the fan in this world because 99.9 % of Scripture prophecy has come to pass, the world is gonna be tilted on its axis--either literally or figuratively with events that are gonna make you so frightened you will pray for death.
The bishop--"bishop"--is a "priest", minister to the elect of God...whether YOU accept that or not--doesn't matter--he's accountable to the Living God and he FEARS his God to much to continue in this weary battle with you--are you dense--or just uneducated or what ? at your age you should not want to continue this MEANINGLESS B___S___ WITH A PRIEST; Jesus Christ is gonna call in your lack of respect for Him (to put it mildly) ONE OF THESE HERE DAY'S BRO--AND THERE AIN'T NO SECOND CHANCE FOR YOU ; you either get it here while you still breathe, or you will be asked WHY you rejected the Lord Jesus Christ--and there will be NO excuse in that day--and your chance for reigning with Christ in eternity --will be gone forever... you disrespect righteous men who serve God; (if there is adequate evidence) and I have found that evidence on you and if Hogg can't see it, tells me he WON'T see it because this is a "emotional thrill" ride for him and makes him feel important as he is not of position that would qualify him to debate and presume, etc and professionals don't presume; they get the facts and then form the conclusion. Hogg has not done that--or worse he rejects it. He is quite immature as is evident to me.
a
I stated on this thread (27 August 2009 @ 4:21 PM) that any further playing of Farrant's little game of referring to me (and anyone else who is critical of him) as "Seán Manchester" will result in no response being given.
Anonymous has chosen to ignore what I said ten days ago. Hence, no response from me regarding Anonymous' infantile provocations generally and false allegations against Bishop Seán Manchester in particular.
The same goes for Farrant who is too far down the road of paranoia to realise what he is blurting out.
Wow, Carol.
Nice to see you rear your head on here.
You said:
"I told AH he's become a spiritual fag by having spiritual UNION with you--no matter how distant you are separated by the ocean in the 'physical'--he doesn't have enough discernment to comprehend that Christians aren't suppose to have ANY interface or communication or surface relationship with unbelievers"
If you're addressing him on here...doesn't that make you guilty of what you're claiming I do?
Also, what about preaching to the "blind"? Wasn't Jesus accompanied by the "refuse" of society? Did he turn them all away or did He hurl mindless rants at them like you just did?
I think not.
The only reason I'm not purely anonymous, Carol, is because your friend, Deme, decided to use an e-mail I sent to the VRS defending you, against me as a form of attack...all the while, keeping his own identity intact.
If you choose to co-habit with such people, what does it say about you?
And Dave,
Thanks for the correspondence. A reproduction of the original would've been good...
Now, do you have that Varma correspondence, too?
FOR CAROL
It really is very difficult for me to reply to you Carol, as quite honestly, I cannot understand half of what you’re saying. You seem to be just repeating assertions other people have about Satanism and ‘witchcraft’ and following their wrong conceptions – at least, as these are apparently been applied to myself anyway.
I will deal with your main questions very briefly because I simply don’t have time to write long essays on the subject here. Neither would anybody want me to!
To begin with, don’t worry about using my full name. Certain other individuals continually use my full name to ‘attack’ myself publicly, so therefore I feel entitled to use my real name to defend myself against such allegations (such as your’s).
Firstly, I am NOT a Satanist. Indeed, I have frequently condemned the activities and beliefs of this dangerous religion. This is all on public record and has been for years.
Yes. I was Initiated into Wicca many years ago – but Wicca as in ‘White Witchcraft’, the latter having nothing to do with the ‘black side’ of it, or ‘black magic’.
But I left Wicca in 1982 in preference to writing about God, Mysticism and Consciousness.
On this subject, I am not opposed to true, or genuine, Christianity, nor am I opposed to the teachings of Jesus. In fact, I have often said that he was probably the most enlightened spiritual Teacher that ever walked this earth. I still sincerely believe that.
I AM opposed to false Christianity however. That is some individuals who merely use the name of God (or Jesus) just to further their own very material, and non-spiritual, ends.
Jesus summed up the essence of true Christianity when he was asked about the ‘Greatest Commandment’ Far from choosing one of the existing one’s, he gave people another, which was to love God and your neighbour as yourself. This is truly the Greatest Commandment because if people really did this, they wouldn’t need any of the others. If you really love your neighbour, you could never steal from them, bear false witness against them; let alone hurt or even ‘murder’ them, could you!?
Well, I hope that covers your basic points, Carol. In relation to myself, anyway.
David Farrant
"I left Wicca in 1982 in preference to writing about God, Mysticism and Consciousness. On this subject, I am not opposed to true, or genuine, Christianity, nor am I opposed to the teachings of Jesus. In fact, I have often said that he was probably the most enlightened spiritual Teacher that ever walked this earth. I still sincerely believe that," claims Farrant.
"BULLDUST!" (to employ a term originating with Ecker and frequently copied by Farrant).
Farrant is absolutely full of the stuff.
This is an interview Farrant gave as recently as last year (be patient when viewing, he appears several minutes into the video) where he is captioned as a "Luciferian":
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=ezDZBOZZcVQ
This is an article about Farrant from almost three years ago in which Farrant is quoted. If this article in a major newspaper is incorrect or has quoted him erroneously, where is Farrant's refutation?
http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2006500393,00.html
When interviewed by the News of the World, 17 July 1994, for a two-page feature titled “Pervert Preys On Kids In Name Of The Devil,” Farrant is quoted as saying: “As High Priest I have to have sex with a girl at her initiation, but if she is very unattractive I might pass the task on to someone else. I’m only human.” The report goes on to describe orgies and rituals involving “policemen and politicians.” Farrant also laid claim to having the ability to “cure cancer and make the blind see again” through the use of his witchcraft. This is the miserable fantasy world of depravity and deception by which Farrant infects the public via the media. This article in the News of the World newspaper appeared twelve years after Farrant now claims he ceased to be a witch!
The tricks of his trade - his devices and stratagems - are shock followed by denial followed by publicity. The latter is his prize. Farrant is not harmless because others invariably become entangled in the web of deceit he spins from his Muswell Hill attic. His criminal convictions include indecency in Monken Hadley churchyard; malicious damage in Highgate Cemetery; offering indignity to remains of the dead via the use of tombs for "witchcraft" photographs taken of a naked girl (Martine de Sacy) and photographs of himself peering into coffins; theft of items from Barnet General Hospital; possession of a handgun and ammunition; and, last but not least, threatening police witnesses with voodoo dolls transfixed with pins and accompanying menacing poems. Anyone can be forgiven for believing this man is (or, at the very least, wants to give the impression to the public at large he is) a Satanist!
He was awarded the derisory sum of £50 in a libel action against the News of the World where it could not be proven that "David didn't do these ridiculous things for sex ... [because] he was a failure as a lover," (quote attributed to Martine de Sacy in an article titled "Casanova Witch A Failure As A Lover"). The witness herself had returned to France and could not be found in time for the High Court trial. Farrant, however, lost a libel action against the Daily Express whose correspondents had accused him of being deranged and phoney. £20,000 court costs were awarded against him.
The Hornsey Journal, 16 November 1979, carried all the lurid details: "Self-styled 'high priest' David Farrant told a High Court jury this week of the night he performed a ritual sex act in an attempt to summon up a vampire in Highgate Cemetery. He also admitted that he had taken part in the 'sacrifice' of a stray cat in Highgate Wood."
Farrant, now approaching 64, has shown absolutely no remorse for any of his behaviour (of which only the tip of the iceberg appears here as an illustration of how he has wasted the last four decades of his life). Journalists still occasionally provide him with the oxygen of publicity, which is a sad reflection on their integrity. When someone has a track record such as Farrant's, you do not take him at his word.
THE SOCK PUPPET POSTS AGAIN . . .
My reply was for Carol, Sean (sorry, "demonologist" of course!)not yourself so why bring in all this 'cut n' pasted' material which is not in the least bit relevant to what I said.
Your material is not only inaccurate "demonologist" it has been deliberately distorted.
You say, for example . . .
"When interviewed by the News of the World, 17 July 1994, for a two-page feature titled “Pervert Preys On Kids In Name Of The Devil,” Farrant is quoted as saying: “As High Priest I have to have sex with a girl at her initiation, but if she is very unattractive I might pass the task on to someone else. I’m only human".
You fail to point out (deliberately) that this story did NOT relate to myself but to a completely different person on a different page.
By desperately trying to 'link ' the two, you are merely showing us all how you deliberately distort things,"demonologist".
If this paragraph has been thus deliberately by yourself, "demonologist", people here are entitled to ask how many other events you have tried to distort.
So just go back and play with your sock puppet again Sean, and allow Carol to come back to my points herself, if she wants to.
David Farrant
"SINCE S. MANCHESTER IS A PRIEST--debating professionally via the title for credibility sake...It is professional to use 'title' or you don't command the respect of the person-student-lay person in the forum"
Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall.- Proverbs 16:18
And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.- Matthew 23:9
".that's why I told AH he's become a spiritual fag by having spiritual UNION with you--no matter how distant you are separated by the ocean in the 'physical'--"
Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.- Matthew 7:1-2
Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor. - Exodus 20:10
"... main reason for existence to to preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ TO YOU and warning your pig-headed dumb ass ---before you die--or,that by 2012 the shit is gonna hit the fan in this world because 99.9 % of Scripture prophecy has come to pass,"
But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only. - Matthew 24:36
" at your age you should not want to continue this MEANINGLESS B___S___ WITH A PRIEST; Jesus Christ is gonna call in your lack of respect for Him (to put it mildly) ONE OF THESE HERE DAY'S BRO--AND THERE AIN'T NO SECOND CHANCE FOR YOU ;"
Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.- Matthew 7:15
I am not going to argue the ins and outs of religion here with you Carol, you can believe whatever you may choose to believe.
I have never claimed to be a 'prophet, a guru, a teacher or anything else. I am just a writer that's all. I don't want followers, and I never have done.
I can respect genuine Priests (and I have known several - indeed, I have met several at my Talks), but I cannot respect people who call themselves 'Priests', but in reality are not at all.
There are many of the above people about today, but they have not been properly ordained and, more often than not, they only adopt self-styled Chuch status for Tax avoidance purposes.
So no. I have no respect for such people. I respect Divine Principle (God if you like) and the Teachings of Jesus but not the very human doctrines of men such as that. They are totally at the mercy of their own secular influences.
I have no worries about any 'Final Judgement', Carol, simply because I know you do not have wait for death to come into communination with Divine Principle. You can do so right now, if you really want.
David Farrant
Demonologist said...
"BULLDUST!" (to employ a term originating with Ecker and frequently copied by Farrant).
Well that is Mister Ecker to you and what I actually said was BULLSHIT.
If you are going to quote me, get it right.
THANKS DON
But this is just another example of how confused "demonologist" is. 'Bulldust' was my own word as I wanted to avoid putting s____ on the end!
Another example of what "demonologist'just said on here. He said (Quote)
"When interviewed by the News of the World, 17 July 1994, for a two-page feature titled “Pervert Preys On Kids In Name Of The Devil,” Farrant is quoted as saying: “As High Priest I have to have sex with a girl at her initiation, but if she is very unattractive I might pass the task on to someone else. I’m only human".
This is, in fact, a deliberate lie designed to misrepsent an erroneous situation.
The NOW article was not about myself. That headline related to a completely different person. The News of the World were doing a general article on the occult and Witchcraft. My piece was on another page and nothing to do with the article "demonology' is now trying to distort.
The pice (my piece) was headlined . . . "Witch has ex with Coven of Beauties". And the sub-headline was . . . "He avoids the Ugly Ones!".
This should show everyone here what "demonologist" is really like. An individual who is desperately trying to portray myself as a "Satanist" - when I am not one at all!
Thanks for that Don
David (Farrant)
AH it's clear you will rationalize anything; concerning the Scriptural things: ....why don't you talk with your own pastor about how LONG or often---you are suppose to "preach" to the "blind"; (but your working on other things)--not making sure DF gets the message... Jesus told the disciples to go into a town or in to a house and "if they do not hear you, leave that place and shake the dust off your feet as a witness against them...( he said LEAVE--don't hang around because some of their interests are some of yours--you are to leave---and it will be more tolerable for Sodom and Gohorrahh on that day", and you are not suppose to "linger" around or "hang out with" those who will not receive you---but none of your comments show that you are doing the work of Christ--but of you....just an excuse to keep being involved....and play artificial investigator, get your feet rubbed and feel all good inside. Do you need friends ? find friends where you are--but maybe you can't ?? And concerning "the blind"--the "blind" are those whose heart is open--but they don't see and when the gospel comes to them they gladly accept---you are not to sit around and try and figure out if F____ is blind because he's made his choice and since he's done that you are not to stay. Why don't YOU force the issue with F____ and when he makes it clear to you then you must leave. Tell me, will you ask your pastor or not--about what the right thing to do is ?
AH--will you also inform your pastor about what you've been hiding behind the net doing ??...no of course you won't and I'll bet my "socks" that you aren't involved much in a church anymore either and tell me here if I'm in the ball range: I will guess your age to be between 32 -36 and minus 6 yrs from either of those and you have the true emotional age of the man--which would then make sense of all your nonsense. As far as F____ goes, we know he drinks and has for years, and that is another interesting key: people who start drinking when they are young stay emotionally young--research shows that they do not mature, remaining in the teen years and that's why they do the immature things of a youth. Amd WHY haven't you answered any of my questions ? go back and look.
FOR CAROL
Carol,
I am not preaching to anyone, and I never have done. But I will answer questions about my books, Talks or writings, and many people do this all the time. But answering questions, or perhaps more often having to refute lies which have been spread about myself, is not quite the same thing as preaching, surely?
For example, when people accuse me of being a Satanist or that I practice black magic, I have to reply that this is simply not true. That is not preaching; that is just denying a lie. Would you not do the same thing if lies were told about yourself? I strongly suspect that you would. And why not? There is nothing wrong in denying falsities.
To accuse me of being against the Teachings of Jesus (which you virtually said), is not true either. I am not really blaming you for this as you have only been led to this assumption by other individuals. But I am saying that you should not have allowed yourself to be so misled. As a matter of fact, the ‘joke’ is really on yourself (and I’m not trying to be frivolous here) as I DO happen to believe in that Divine Principle that put us all here. In fact, if it were not for that, none of us would be here! God (or Divine Principle) gave us all life. You don’t have to turn to any books or man-made theories to work that out.
So no, I am not a Satanist. I think the beliefs and motivations of such people are misguided and dangerous; ‘dangerous’ mainly because such beliefs can turn you away from that Divine Principle, or God.
There is really no point in discussing this further, Carol. I have answered your questions and points. I can’t really do anymore than that.
David Farrant
DF and AH are "new age"---now it is clear; an amalgamation of "white" witch craft, do not judge, Jesus as "enlightened guru /avatar, scripture as relative to new age beliefs, that all religious beliefs are in common and "relative" to all other beliefs and to all humanity, and that we should just "love" each other (wrong biblical interpretation of what TRUE love is); and the greatest commandment is "love"(with no details in the pudding as to exactly WHAT does that REALLY mean)--the problem with you two is neither of you understands the true context of how or WHY these things are applied to their particular context; ok, NOW I see the truth here and NOW I understand AH's need and ignorance of his beliefs (+ lack of biblical exegesis and human maturity), and ok, David you claimed many things and now you are just kinda general or generic across the board of beliefs that hang out there in cosmic limbo, and as far as "white withcraft " re: wicca that is a misnomer--the two are different--but the new age technique is to meld and fuse all these "parts" of religious systems together until they become a established religious collective mindset of the new world order.
AH-As far as "judging" do mean condemning you or "discerning" that you are on a wrong downward path, AH- and as I sister in Christ I am to tell you to bring you to your senses.....and if you won't hear, then the elders of the church are to come to you and warn you to stop what you are doing or you are anathema, as PAUL commanded--you will be put out of your church--and ostracized from the fellowship of Christ--because of your deliberate indulgence of entertaining dignitaries that you should not be entertaining; so, are you going to your pastor and first tell him a bout all your involvement and strife in this---be truthful--and tell him all your lengthy involvement and then ask him for his blessing and ask him if you should NOT be involved ? AH---if you are NOT doing anything wrong---are you going to verify this through your pastor ? and you should tell him that A ordained Catholic priest has ALREADY made everything clear and warned ALL of us about DF----but that you CHOSE NOT to listen and actually left the Christian forum and joined ranks with a professed new age cult follower (doesn't matter what his doings are re: BSM--as that for YOU--is NOT the issue)do you even understand what the issue is ? will you also tell your pastor how you "rationalize" everything so that you don't feel guilty about what you do or don't do >>>>>
you repeatedly lose sight of the real and true issues and are you still living at home with your parents ?? because this would also be a good indicator of why you do what you do.....would you allow me to express to YOUR pastor my concern for your involvement with DF and please furnish his contact info ? or maybe the real person here Is I should be talking to is "MOM" ?
here is David in his most revealing moment: "I LOVE THEM (ALL) REALLY"
AND THIS IS NOT INDICATIVE ONLY OF WOMEN--BUT OF ALL HIS BELIEFS, HOGG; EVERYTHING'S GOOD ALL IS GOOD WE JUST NEED LOVE--AND NO CORRECTION GIVES US REBELLION AND DEFIANCE ULTIMATELY LEADING TO GOD HIMSELF---THEN THERE'S A PROBLEM.
See, A--its not just a matter of a word battle and who did or didn't do such and such---it is direct battle with God that DF stands up against--which you join in, (again you lose site of issues and tend to deviate)
not with a man (BSM)--he lies and defies the Holy Spirit--just like Ananias and Saphira did--when Peter said: "you have not lied unto men but unto God--and your life will be required of you this day.." and he fell down dead.. and shortly there after Peter said to his wife Sephira : "those who have taken your husband are at the door" and she fell down dead from that very moment ....and A---God clearly tells us in Scripture we are to "test" the sprirts to discern if they be from him...and we are to STAND against evil--in all its forms coming at us in a spirit of Light...what bible do you read---??
david-- you don't and can't "talk" with a divine principle--OR WORSHIP A DIVINE PRINCIPLE you talk with a "person"; salvation comes through A PERSON; THAT'S why AND how THE BIBLICAL RECORD AND HISTORY ARE COMPLETELY UNIQUE-AGAINST all OTHER BELIEFS; SALVATION COMES TO MAN BY A PERSON, THE SON OF GOD, AND SALVATION FOR SIN IS ONLY DONE BY THE SHEDDING OF BLOOD---THAT IS WHY PAGANS SACRIFICED ANIMALS--BECAUSE THEY FELT INHERENT GUILT TOWARDS A GOD CONCEPT-A HIGHER POWER--EVEN THOUGH THEY DID NOT KNOW who HE WAS AT THAT TIME IN HISTORY. HE WAS REVEALED AROUND ANNO DOMINI=A.D.=THE YEAR OF OUR LORD; THAT IS WHY DAVID, THE ENTIRE HISTORICAL RECORD OF MAN and calendars state: B.C.=BEFORE CHRIST and A.D.=(after Christ)=Anno Domini=in the year of our Lord (Jesus Christ)
ALL of written history is recorded around the event of Christ's birth, death and resurrection. He IS the only person of any written religion that was able to influence the entire history of man and making all historical documentation and record to revolve around HIM--which is a sign of his verification and validation. If you study the horoscope you will also find his story/ written record according to the months in the stars. The ancient Persian "wise ones" read prophecy in the heavens, knew a divine messiah had come into the world and they followed his star-and "worshiped HIM". History is a great and very credible source as to the truth of the Redeemer of man. And it is VERY clear--it is not some cosmic force or principle--but a person-a man-god; again salvation and redemption cannot be done except by the shedding of blood as a propitiation FREE sacrifice to all men re: the LAMB of God /Son of God who takes away the sin of the world
a
well David dont know about anyone else but im totality lost with all this religious stuff,just find it boring.Who is Carol is she a new convert!
Anyway she cant be that special cos she dont have an "e" at the end of her name like i do!
Carole
FOR CAROLE
No, Sweetheart. Carol is not a 'girlfriend' - or 'Internet girlfriend' - she is just a religious American lady who is concerned about the salvation of my 'wicked soul'! Bless her. Wish more people cared!
Will call you in the week, and maybe we can meet at the weekend or soon after.
For the moment,
David
accusing Demonologist of being Sean--is a distraction technique--to incite reaction and redirect focus
AH: you are a ver batim butt-head--because I post address to DF does not make me in "spiritual union" as you are. I do not regularly hang on his blogs or in communication with deviate intention as the two of you, nor ask for info or manuscripts and join in his antics --neither do I blaspheme a priest nor am I in UNION together in his actions---I'm am here to confront YOU; you have the brains of a dumb female rather than a discerning man--no matter what your age--my target is not F____ as that is what he would like--I address YOU for being a bimbo. In addressing YOU--my point(s) are clearly made.
For Carol,
Yes, it would be. Unless that's really true, of course!
David
every time you take me on--you invariably fuck it up; your use of this: "co-habiting" ! Is another fecundity (fertile) blunder; I said you are in "spiritual union"=like actual intercourse, but worse;
"co-habiting" is not correct; it is "co-habitating" (living together in a real-time physical environment)
stop with the female-like crap-- talk like a man, be a man and stand down--your not a match for me; you lack skill; take off the dress and let us see your true inward parts
you are now by-produce of DF and you should not be proud of that.
overseer: "Firstly, David you are clutching at straws...."
it should be "First, David...."
"Firstly" sounds as fruity as you are w/ D. And, is incorrect grammar.
But your trying to be a professional investigator....
FOR CAROL
You said . . . "neither do I blaspheme a priest"
Neiher do I Carol, as there exists no 'Priest' to defame!
His 'Priest' label is all sheer bulldust. He has no genuine authority to such a title. If you choose to keep believing otherwise, that really remains your problem!
David Farrant
to "Protestant":
lame use of Scriptural veracity; simplistic; no relationship to what I referenced; no contextual framework; rote memorization quoted Scripture--typical Protestant; quotes are out of context and lack comprehensive reference and truth
to "CAROLE" your a bimbo--like Hogg
Look Carol,
I have only been speaking to you for one day, and look at where this has led!
I have virtually been accused of havuing some sort of affair with you now, which you know is not really true.
We are not really getting anywhere on religious topics, so think it best we 'call this a day' (albeit a fairly unique one!).
I will let Anthony (Overseer) continue with this if he wants to. Me? I really do not have the time (no offence) so can you continue this discussion with The Overseer. (That is the genuine one, of course!).
No doubt he will answer you - he seems good at dealing with these sort of things!
For now
David (Farrant)
To DF: the Old Catholic Church is also here in the U.S. and I attended for a time--but it was all in Latin by the priest and I couldn't understand it--and I already was attending the Roman Church; BSM also carries out the mass rite in Latin; you may want to contact the Vatican website or Catholic news articles or ask-a-question to the Vatican; they recently published a statement about schisms ( do you understand this ?) and the schismatic off-shoots that they now are willing to embrace and accept BACK, Greek Orthodox is another schism that they are humbling themselves towards--and one was the Old Catholic Church, but that isn't a point; the Old Catholic Church is a real denomination with membership, title and registry; they have their own seminaries; I wanted to become a army chaplain in their denomination and contacted the official office of the Old Catholic Church here in the States and they sent me chaplaincy application materials--its all for real but women can't be ordained in their church meaning I could attend the program but would not be officially ordained--if I'm not ordained the Army will not accept me, and that would be wasted university years with no way to practice chaplaincy--but you are jealous--and that has been the turmoil you have gone through all these years; Manchester, NOT BEING LAZY actually IS a legitimate priest of the Utrecht succession--lineage which goes back before St. Peter was proclaimed head of the Rome Church--it is a denomination that is ancient and true Catholic--without all the added revisions throughout the millenniums; you are obviously lazy and don't do your research--just like your Hogg hybrid--which just makes you both a belly-aching laughing riot-- OF FOOLS ; WHY don't you BOTH--spend time researching the Old Catholic Church denomination--but that would mean you were wrong and STUPID. you two are both uneducated blundering errors in the fabric of humanity; F___ I already posted all this to you the last time I was involved--at least 3-4 yrs ago--and you still have not researched it.
NOTE: the correct shortened form of the word "demonologist" is demo--not deme--c'mon you and your grunts are that dim-witted ? when you do things like that--it shows you really don't care that you are wrong so that tells me that there is a more sinister AND DELIBERATE motive for all this--
F___why don't you do proper research ? do you need me to waste more of my time and do it for you ? I'll send you a pound of hard-copy materials--what's your address where I can ship ? To make this REALLY easy for you and your sweet swine--just mosey on over to a local Roman Catholic Church in your area, ask to talk with the priest about some "church questions"--and ask him; or ask him to direct you to someone higher up familiar with other claimed "Catholic" denominations. This is not "rocket science"--it takes some effort--which you don't indulge in for 2 reasons: #1. you are lazy #2. you are wrong
a
I have already done the research, Carol.
The official Head of the Old Catholic Church is run by Archbishhop Glazemaker in Holland. But they completely deny that that person you mention is one of their members. Likewise so do the Old Cathiolic Chuirch in America who say he has not been ordained as one of their Priests. The person claims to be recognised by the Vatican, but again, they have never even heard of him.
The whole thing is just an eloborate con trick, Carol. Believe me, I checked this out sevral years ago and have these replies in writing.
The person you are referrng to is definitely not an Old Catholic Priest or Bishop; the person you refer to, is only a con-man.
Sorry to 'dampen your spirits' - but these are the facts.
I can respect genuine Priets - but not false one's.
David Farrant
When interviewed by the News of the World, 17 July 1994, for a two-page feature titled "Pervert Preys On Kids In Name Of The Devil," Farrant is quoted as saying: “As High Priest I have to have sex with a girl at her initiation, but if she is very unattractive I might pass the task on to someone else. I’m only human".
"You fail to point out that this story did NOT relate to myself but to a completely different person on a different page," says Farrant.
The two-page spread was under the general heading "Pervert Preys On Kids In Name Of The Devil" which covered stories about Raymond Bogart and David Farrant. Self-proclaimed Satanist Bogart was directly related to child molestation and Farrant to allegedly seducing young females. Farrant is quoted as saying: “As High Priest I have to have sex with a girl at her initiation, but if she is very unattractive I might pass the task on to someone else. I’m only human". Is he now claiming that this quote is not attributed to him? The same News of the World report goes on to attribute orgies and rituals involving “policemen and politicians” to Farrant's claims which also include him having the supposed ability to “cure cancer and make the blind see again” through the use of his witchcraft. This is what the newspaper stated in its report about Farrant, not somebody else. If it was quoting him inaccurately where is Farrant's refutation statement? The Press Complaints Council would insist his rebuttal be printed if the newspaper was shown to have misquoted him.
Farrant is quick enough to tell me that I am wrong when I am only quoting what he said in the largest selling newspaper in the world. If the quotes attributed to him are erronoeus, why did he not tell the newspaper in question at the time, ie twelve years after he now claims he ceased to be a witch?
"The official Head of the Old Catholic Church is run by Archbishhop Glazemaker in Holland. But they completely deny that that person you mention is one of their members. Likewise so do the Old Cathiolic [sic] Chuirch [sic] in America who say he has not been ordained as one of their Priests. The person claims to be recognised by the Vatican, but again, they have never even heard of him," claims Farrant.
The Dutch "Old Catholic Church" was well and truly Catholic when it seceded from the Roman Catholic Church in the early 18th century and remained well and truly Catholic when the line came to Great Britain and Ireland in April 1908. It is from this line via Archbishop Arnold Harris Mathew (1908) that Bishop Seán Manchester inherited his Old Catholic succession from the origial Utrecht Old Catholics via Archbishop Mathew's British line.
However, the Dutch Old Catholic Church later entered into full communion with the Church of England and effectively became Protestant despite retaining the nomenclature "Old Catholic." This does not alter the validity of Bishop Manchester's succession because it stems from a time prior to the Dutch Church becoming Protestant and consequently (in the eyes of the Roman Catholic Church) utterly void. The same Roman Catholic Church nevertheless recognises the validity of lines inherited from the Dutch (Utrecht) Church prior to it becoming Protestant when communion with Canterbury was established.
All genuine Old Catholic, ie not Protestant, jurisdictions are nowadays obliged to be autocephalous, which means self-governing and independent. Were they otherwise, they would be in communion with Rome and under papal authority, like some Eastern Catholic jursidictions.
This is true of the American Old Catholic Churches, some of which are clearly apostate, who are all autocephalous. Why would an American Church seek to ordain Bishop Manchester? The very notion serves to illustrate how woefully ignorant Farrant is about ecclesial matters. The same applies to Old Catholic Churches elsewhere, not least the British Isles. Bishop Manchester represents the traditional wing of the Old Catholic presence in Great Britain and distances himself from liberal and progressive so-called "Old Catholic" churches which are often a front for masonry, occultism and new-ageism.
How would Farrant possibly know if the Vatican have heard of Bishop Seán Manchester? It would be strange if they had not because Bishop Manchester is a registered member of the Vatican's website and has been corresponding with cardinals and the pope in his capacity as a bishop for a good many years!
"The NOW article was not about myself," protests Farrant yet again.
http://highgatevampire.blogspot.com
In the 17 July 1994 News of the World report at the above link are claims about Farrant's prowess as a "High Priest" of witchcraft.
Yet on this thread Farrant states he abandoned his wiccan beliefs and ceased to be a witch as far back as 1982. This is obviously more deceit from a compulsive liar.
He is also described as "a High Priest of the British Occult Society" in the report.
The British Occult Society had no "High Priests" and existed purely to examine hidden phenomena. Furthermore, Farrant owed absolutely no association with the British Occult Society who were quick to refute his fraudulent claims wherever they appeared in the media.
(Click on the press cutting images to read them more easily at the link provided).
The fact is "demonologist" that the News of the World report related to another person completely unrelated to myself - hence the headline which related to that particular report. The headline related to that person because it was ABOUT that person. The fact you are trying to link it to myself, "demonologist", just shows how desperate you are really getting.
My interview to the News of the World was about 'witchcraft' in general, it was NOT about their exclusive report on the other person - in fact, I did not even know about their investigation into that case until their report appeared in the newspaper.
You really are a pathetic little individual, "demonologist", but I don't think anybody here lacks the intelligence to see through your desperate claims to attempt to 'paint me' as some sort of Satanist.
I investigated the status of the Old Catholic Church in 2006/7 together with my (then) secretary who compiled a dossier on our findings. It is a genuine organization based in Holland but they were quick to point out that many unauthorised people used their name to obtain fraudulent 'religious status'; mainly with the intention of 'tax avoidance purposes'. In other words, these people were none less than bogus 'priests' or 'bishops'.
I have a complete copy of this file (as indeed she has) and it is damning about the activities of
such people.
By the way, we are all still waiting for the names and dates of the newspapers/magazines in which you claim I published photographs of a 'nude witch', "demonologist" from 1976 onwards.
YOU made this claim here "demonologist" so at least give us the names of the publications to back it up. Otherwise you must forgive people if they assume you have been telling your usual 'fibs' again!
Well?
David Farrant
"The fact is 'demonologist' that the News of the World report related to another person completely unrelated to myself," insists Farrant.
A "fact" is something proven beyond dispute. I invite interested parties to examine the actual article itself which can be read in facsimile at:
http://highgatevampire.blogspot.com
The 17 July 1994 News of the World article is about Farrant's prowess as a "High Priest" of witchcraft.
Yet Farrant now claims he abandoned witchcraft and ceased to be a witch in 1982.
Farrant is also described in the article as "a High Priest of the British Occult Society" when he was nothing to do with the British Occult Society and never has been.
The British Occult Society was not a religious organisation and therefore did not have "High Priests." It existed solely for the investigation and study of hidden phenomena.
Is Farrant now claiming that the quotes attributed to him in the News of the World, 17 July 1994, are false? And, if he is, why did he not have a refutation published?
DELIBERATELY DUMB
Stop playing so deliberately 'dumb', "demomologist" You are only showing your own guilt by trying to play that one.
I am talking about the HEADLINE you deliberately used which you lifted from a completely different story and tried to link to my own (story). THAT'S what I'm talking about, not the quotes from my own story - and you well know it.
When you deliberately fabricate headlines like that Sean (sorry "demonologist", of course) can you really blame people for questioning other newspaper reports that you have selected? I somehow don't think so!
Stop attempting to fabricate past events "demonologist" just because these don't happen to suit your own warped agenda.
David Farrant.
Hey Kids, lets not forget what this is ultimately all about! Forget all the other "distractions" were there actual supernatural and EVIL Vampyr's lurking about Highgate Cemetery.
Did good ol' vampire hunting Sean Manchester "DESTROY" the "KING" vampire and then track down good ol' Jackie Cooper, aka Jackie Manchester and before driving a stake into her, watch her change from a, you know, regular ol' vampire into a "SPIDER vampire", nail her, well you know with a stake, not nail her the other way, and then did he actually have to "re-bury" her? You know, and all that other stuff?
He Demonologist, we all know David Farrant was in jail, we all know he practiced Wica, we all know he enjoyed a rather large sampling of the ladies. (by the way, does that make you jealous?) so for God's sake change your rant, will you? And answer my questions about the "actual supernatural vampires .... Real or Not? You know, with that same old BS line you pitch all over the freaking web, it is now very BORING. You dig?
"I am talking about the HEADLINE you deliberately used which you lifted from a completely different story and tried to link to my own (story)," claims Farrant.
Is Farrant in need of a new pair of spectacles or does he just not bother to digest properly what anyone other than himself says?
I had already stated on 6 September 2009 @ 10:05 AM:
"The two-page spread was under the general heading 'Pervert Preys On Kids In Name Of The Devil' which covered stories about Raymond Bogart and David Farrant. Self-proclaimed Satanist Bogart was directly related to child molestation and Farrant to allegedly seducing young females."
What I failed to mention is that the 1994 article in the News of the World appeared beneath a lewd photograph (supplied by him) of Farrant standing in front of a kneeling young girl before a black magic altar and mural of the Devil. The young girl is naked and her hands are tied behind her back.
This is 1994, remember; twelve years after Farrant now claims (on this thread) he quit witchcraft and ceased to be a witch!
The same 1994 article states:
"Orgies are all in night's work for Farrant, 47, who was once jailed for interfering with graves. 'You have to have a pretty high sex drive to be in the coven,' he boasted. 'My first wife was a Roman Catholic and suspected what was going on and we split up.' He claims his rituals are good and can cure cancer and make the blind see again."
Cure cancer?
Make the blind see again?
How low is Farrant prepared to stoop in his endeavours to attract publicity?
To Demonologist:
No one cares about this. Read Don Ecker's post -
"Demonologist, we all know David Farrant was in jail, we all know he practiced Wica, we all know he enjoyed a rather large sampling of the ladies. (by the way, does that make you jealous?) so for God's sake change your rant, will you? And answer my questions about the "actual supernatural vampires .... Real or Not? You know, with that same old BS line you pitch all over the freaking web, it is now very BORING. You dig?"
Get back on topic or leave, mm-'kay?
Answer the man's questions or peddle your papers elsewhere, mm-'kay?
You've worn out your welcome.
Just in case you don't know, if comments reach 100, your computer will explode.
When is Farrant going to address a single point I (and others) have raised?
A letter on headed prison notepaper from Farrant calling himself “A D Farrow” (a pseudonym adopted by him when arrested at midnight by police in Highgate Cemetery on 17 August 1970) to the president of the British Occult Society, Seán Manchester, can be found at:
http://highgatevampire.blogspot.com
Farrant reveals in his prison correspondence that he has now changed his plea to the court from one of guilty to not guilty, and requests Seán Manchester's appearance as a character witness to speak on his behalf. He expresses concern over how the court might react when they realise he sought publicity in connection with Highgate Cemetery over the six months prior, and now wants Seán Manchester in court “to say you have warned people” about the very behaviour he had engaged in. He claims to appreciate that Seán Manchester is “a busy man,” but nonetheless would like Manchester to visit him, or, at least, send somebody else.
He then asks for Seán Manchester's advice, concluding his letter with the following statement: “Well that’s all, please forgive me for being in this trouble and having to ask your help. I would be grateful if you could write immediately.” Seán Manchester did not write, nor did he allow himself to be exploited for Farrant's court case with the inevitable media coverage to follow, but he did visit Farrant at Brixton Prison. This was the only time Seán Manchester has ever visited Farrant in prison and the prison letter mailed by the prison on 21 August 1970 was the only correspondence from jail that Seán Manchester has ever received from this man. The visit left Seán Manchester in absolutely no doubt that Farrant was trying to rope him into some sort of dubious attention-seeking scheme, and that Farrant wanted it to be made all the more plausible by what might be seen as Seán Manchester's seal of approval. Farrant was told in no uncertain terms that it was not going to happen. All of which is totally at odds with what Farrant today claims about the British Occult Society and his relationship towards both it and Seán Manchester four decades ago. His correspondence is clear evidence that he is lying.
What Farrant conveniently forgets is that he is on tape, secretly recorded by Tony Hill during the period Farrant slept in Hill's coal bunker. These recordings from early 1970 conclusively show that Farrant attempted to hoax a ghost story in his local press with himself at its centre.
"I left Wicca in 1982." - David Farrant (5 September 2009 @ 3:23 PM)
Yet Farrant appeared as a "High Priest" of Wicca (witchcraft) in the News of the World newspaper in October 2006 and in July 1994. Photographs of him at his home-made altar appear alongside both articles in which he is quoted at length.
How can Farrant have left witchcraft in 1982 and still be claiming in the national press to be practicing it in 1994 and 2006?
Demonologist:
When are YOU going to answer the questions?
Are supernatural vampires REAL or NOT?
If Manchester staked Jackie Cooper where is she buried?
We're tired of your rants about David Farrant. It's not interesting.
Two more posts and your computer will explode. Go for it man!
FOR EVERYONE
I am sure most people would agree with Mr Mackey that the person calling themselves "demonologst" (and everybody knows who he REALLY is, Sean)has gone completely off topic in trying to avoid his ridiculous public ststements about how he staked two vampires; one of which emitted a 'mighty roar' as Bonky consigned it "to the bowels of hell", the other of which changed into a 'giant'spider' let us all remember! The latter just happened to be his live-in girlfriend at the time, another point he always tries to avoid discussing.
His rants about myself 'leaving Wicca' in 1982 and claims that I am still actively involved in it, are just another example of these trivialities.
I give Talks and interviews about the paranormal and our psychic investigations the whole time, and often I am asked to discuss my past involvements in Wicca, which I do. (Indeed, I am giving another talk next month on this very subject).
To say this is 'proof' that I am still actively involved in it (Wicca) is just childish nonsense. I always make it clear in my Talks and interviews that this is not the case - indeed, just as I made it clear to the News of the World.
I am not going to address Bonky's denials that he wrote to me and visited me while I was in different prisons. He DID and I have all his hand-written letters to prove it. I always have many of many hours of converstaions that I had with Bonky where he also confirms this. And I have these tapes.
Well, I see I have made the 99th post. Who wants to seal off the 100th? Not me, as I don't want to be accused of taking the last word.
How about you Don, as Cat's apparently still on strike? Or you Mr Mackey with your accurate observations? Maybe even dear old Overseer?
Carol seems to have 'run off' now, so I don't think we will be hearing from her again!
So for now everyone,
David Farrant
"Who wants to seal off the 100th?"
I'll take up that banner.
How about posting up the Varma correspondence?
BOOOOOOOOMMMMM!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The joint has exploded!
BOOOOOOOOMMMMM!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The joint has exploded!
For you Overseer; if this message finds its way through the wreckage!
Overseer, its not quite as easy as that. All the Varma stuff is on my older computer and my scanner's not working for that at the moment. Means I have to find it then transfer it all over manually by disc. These things take time, and I do not have much spare at the moment.
In the meantime why don't you email Jeanne Youngson yourself at her Vampire Empire? Sure she would love to help. Say I suggested it if you want.
For now,
David
"His rants about myself 'leaving Wicca' in 1982 and claims that I am still actively involved in it, are just another example of these trivialities. I give Talks and interviews about the paranormal and our psychic investigations the whole time, and often I am asked to discuss my past involvements in Wicca, which I do," protests Farrant.
For the record, I don't actually believe Farrant has ever been seriously involved in witchcraft. Along with journalists who reported on his courts cases, I believe he is fraudulent and used witchcraft as just one more publicity bandwagon. That is not the point, however, when examing Farrant's own claims in the press.
Farrant stated on this thread that he abandoned witchcraft (wicca) in 1982. These words came from Farrant, not me.
He is then quoted in various newspapers (I have referred only to the News of the World articles in 1994 and 2006; there are others) as claiming to practice witchcraft (as one of its high priests) and his claims are made in the present; they are not referring to something in the past. Again, these claims are not mine, they are Farrant's. He has not subsequently stated that he was misquoted and has certainly not sought a refutation statementfrom the newspapers. How can he have been misquoted when the press provided photographs of him in the middle of a witchcraft ceremony with a naked and bound young girl? The photographs of Farrant engaged in (not "talking about") witchcraft (his own phoney brand, at least) were taken many years after he supposedly left witchcraft and ceased to be a witch. He is therefore obviously lying. It hardly matters in one sense because nobody else involved in wicca has ever taken him remotely seriously. They refer to him as a "publicity junkie" which, of course, he is.
"To say this is 'proof' that I am still actively involved in it (Wicca) is just childish nonsense," insists Farrant.
I have never said the above is "proof" that Farrant is "still actively involved in wicca." I don't beieve he has ever been involved in wicca, so the point is academic. But Farrant himself was claiming to still be practicing witchcraft as recently as Hallowe'en 2006, as confirmed at this link:
http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2006500393,00.html
"All the Varma stuff is on my older computer and my scanner's not working for that at the moment. Means I have to find it then transfer it all over manually by disc. These things take time, and I do not have much spare at the moment," squeals Farrant evasively.
In other words, Farrant wants to put a lot of time and distance between his false claim and delivering goods that do not exist in the hope the whole matter will be forgotten.
"In the meantime why don't you email Jeanne Youngson yourself at her Vampire Empire? Sure she would love to help. Say I suggested it if you want," advises Farrant, passing the buck to someone else.
Jeanne Keyes Youngson, of course, has been soaking up Farrant's vicious propaganda for years. She'd probably say anything to help him out. Providing evidence to support what she says is quite another matter. It just won't happen.
MORE DEMONIC LIES!
You just said this "demonologist"
(and to remind everybody) . . .
The photographs of Farrant engaged in (not "talking about") witchcraft (his own phoney brand, at least) were taken many years after he supposedly left witchcraft and ceased to be a witch. He is therefore obviously lying. It hardly matters in one sense because nobody else involved in wicca has ever taken him remotely seriously.
The photograph of myself and a 'bound yong lady' [as you put it "demmonologist"] first appeared in the News of the World in July 1976 just after my release from prison.
This is the 2nd major lie you have told here in relation to 'nude photographs' "demonologist". I can supply the exact date and the page number of the NOW if so required.
You stated here before that I continued to sell nude photographs of a certain person 'even after I came out of prison, "demonologist".
I asked you to suppy the names and dates of these newspapers or magazines "demonologist" but so far your silence has been deafening. I wonder why?! Simply because it is not true, that's why!
I happen to know that a lot of people are reading this, "demonologist". By stating such misrepsentative public statements, you are showing everyone that you are either extremely confused, or deliberately lying - or both.
You don't know the first thing about genuine Wicca, 'demonologist". Last I seem to remember from you on this is that you were confusing true Wicca with black magic and Satanism.
Grow up for God's sake!!
David Farrant
Okay Sean, uh ... I mean Demonologist, you still FAILED to answer my questions. Lets see, let me "dumb it down" for you. I assume you can still read English, right?
Did you Sean, uh ... I mean Demonologist, drive a stake into the chest of the "King Vampyr" thus "dispatching" him? Should be a simple question to answer.
Did you Sean, uh .... I mean Demonologist, drive a stake into the "vampiric body" of Jackie Cooper, AKA Jackie Manchester, the "Vampyr's Victim" who became a Vampyr, after she morphed into a "Giant Vampyr Spider" then after she achieved the "True Death" re-bury her in her "non-existant" grave?
Please ... Please ... answer those questions. All of our inquiring minds would like to know. Kay'?
"The photograph of myself and a 'bound yong [sic] lady' [as you put it "demmonologist"[sic]) first appeared in the News of the World in July 1976 just after my release from prison," says Farrant.
What does he mean by "as I put it"? Is he saying she was not bound with her hands tied behind her back with white rope? Is he not saying she was completely naked? Is he denying that in the same photograph he is standing in front of her wearing what looks like a dressing-gown tied with an orange cord, holding a knife above her head? Is he denying that immediately behind him and the nude girl is an altar with black candles? Is he denying that behind the altar is a large mural of a grotesque horned face with lots of sharp teeth? Is he also denying that this picture was taken in his home?
I have no idea whether the lewd picture of Farrant waving a dagger over the head of a naked young girl with her hands bound behind her back was published previously. I only know that this was the photograph Farrant sold to the News of the World in 1994 to accompany their article about him; an article which clearly states that in 1994 he was still claiming to be a high priest who practiced witchcraft. Yet he claims on this thread that he ceased to do so in 1982.
If in any doubt take a look at:
http://highgatevampire.blogspot.htm
The picture of Farrant in the News of the World, 31 October 2006, was certainly taken close to the time. He looks the age he would have been three years ago. Once again, this photograph shows Farrant engaged in some sort of witchcraft ritual before an altar at his Muswell Hill attic bedsit. The picture can be viewed here:
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article69185.ece
"Last I seem to remember from you on this is that you were confusing true Wicca with black magic and Satanism," stutters Farrant.
Farrant, as is his custom, provides not a scrap of evidence to substantiate his wild allegations. I am quite aware of the distinction between wicca and Satanism. The question remains as to whether Farrant knows the difference because his publicity-seeking antics in the name of wicca more resemble black magic and Satanism than anything else. I am by no means the first person to make that particular observation. Many witches have reached the same conclusion. Hence they want nothing to do with Farrant who is a phoney witch. He is, however, a genuine attention-seeker!
SHORT MEMORY, "DEMONOLOGIST"?!
Lets remind everybody here what you actually said, Sean.
Here it is aain:
"The photographs of Farrant engaged in (not "talking about") witchcraft (his own phoney brand, at least) were taken many years after he supposedly left witchcraft and ceased to be a witch. He is therefore obviously lying."
YOUR words "demomologist". But You've caught YOURSELF out lying yet again!
That set of photographs was taken in 1972 by journalist Michael Kirsch, who later gave me the colour negs and transparencies.
THAT Sean, is what is known as LYING. There is no other word for it!
David Farrant
Farrant blusters:
"Lets [sic] remind everybody here what you actually said, [Demonologist]. Here it is aain [sic]: 'The photographs of Farrant engaged in (not "talking about") witchcraft (his own phoney brand, at least) were taken many years after he supposedly left witchcraft and ceased to be a witch. He is therefore obviously lying.' YOUR words demomologist [sic]. But You've caught YOURSELF out lying yet again! That set of photographs was taken in 1972 by journalist Michael Kirsch, who later gave me the colour negs and transparencies."
I completely stand by what I wrote.
The article published in the News of the World, 31 October 2006, is accompanied by a photograph of Farrant in his dressing-gown next to his altar with black candles in his Muswell Hill bedsitting room. Farrant would have been aged about sixty at the time, AND LOOKS IT! He is obviously attempting to give the impression (in this photograph of him aged sixty) that he still practices witchcraft. It was supplied by him to the News of the World to accompany their article about him performing some sort of witchcraft initiation at Hallowe'en 2006.
Farrant can't make the distinction between 1982 (when he claims to have abandoned witchcraft) and 2006 when he was till promoting it as a supposed high priest. He has a problem, however, because the rest of us can make that distinction.
How could I know who took the photographs of the naked and bound young girl in Farrant's home, or indeed when this picture was taken? All I need to know is that Farrant supplied it to the News of the World for an article they wrote about him on 17 July 1994. He doesn't look an awful lot younger than he would have looked in that year. The article made it quite clear that Farrant was still claiming to be a practitioner of witchcraft; a high priest no less who avoided ugly women when initiating them!
The point is that 1994 is not prior to 1982, and neither is 2006.
THAT is what is known as LYING, as Farrant knows all too well. There is no other word for it!
THIS MYSTERIOUS 'US'
"Demonologist's" latest rantis:
"Farrant can't make the distinction between 1982 (when he claims to have abandoned witchcraft) and 2006 when he was till promoting it as a supposed high priest. He has a problem, however, because the rest of us can make that distinction."
Who is this 'mysterious us', "demonologist"?
You mean yourself, don't you as nobody else seems to be having a problem with it.
That set of colour photographs was taken in 1972 in a large flat in Kensington. One of this pictures was used by the News of the World in 1976. This was some 10 years BEFORE I left Wicca to turn to writing on mysticism and the paranormal full time.
You really do seem to have a problem "demonologist". A polite word for it might be 'mental confusion'. A more accurate description might be "mental senility"!
David Farrant
"The article published in the News of the World, 31 October 2006, is accompanied by a photograph of Farrant in his dressing-gown next to his altar with black candles in his Muswell Hill bedsitting room. Farrant would have been aged about sixty at the time, AND LOOKS IT! He is obviously attempting to give the impression (in this photograph of him aged sixty) that he still practices witchcraft. It was supplied by him to the News of the World to accompany their article about him performing some sort of witchcraft initiation at Hallowe'en 2006."
Expert textpert choking smokers,
Don't you thing the joker laughs at you?
Ho ho ho!
Hee Hee Hee!
Ha Ha Ha!
See how they smile like pigs in a sty,
See how they snied.
I'm crying...
The old man is extremely confused, so I suppose we must make allowances.
David Farrant
"THIS MYSTERIOUS 'US'[.] Demonologist's latest rantis [sic]: 'Farrant can't make the distinction between 1982 (when he claims to have abandoned witchcraft) and 2006 when he was till promoting it as a supposed high priest. He has a problem, however, because the rest of us can make that distinction.' Who is this 'mysterious us', demonologist? You mean yourself, don't you as nobody else seems to be having a problem with it," says Farrant.
I obviously include myself, but Farrant assumes that just because people can't be bothered (and who can blame them?) to post on here they are unaware of the contradictory comments being made by him.
"Us" is anyone who can distinguish between 1982 and 2006. Farrant clearly can't make the distinction, as he claims to have given up witchcraft in 1982 while publishing his phoney witchcraft stunts in the press up to and including as recently as 2006.
"That set of colour photographs was taken in 1972 in a large flat in Kensington. One of this [sic] pictures was used by the News of the World in 1976. This was some 10 years BEFORE I left Wicca to turn to writing on mysticism and the paranormal full time," claims Farrant somewhat unconvincingly.
If Farrant is referring to the picture of himself in a dressing-gown holding a dagger above the head of a kneeling naked girl with her hands tied behind her back, as published in the News of the World, 17 July 1994, I do not believe for one minute it was taken in 1972 or that this picture is anywhere but his own home. It was not taken in "a large flat in Kensington." Find the girl in the photograph and there is your evidence that Farrant is lying.
Farrant then claims: "One of this [sic] pictures was used by the News of the World in 1976. This was some 10 years BEFORE I left Wicca to turn to writing on mysticism and the paranormal full time."
How was the News of the World able to publish the picture? Farrant was in prison in 1976! He had an outside agent, of course, who kept his publicity-seeking machine going on his behalf, but this he denies.
Farrant omits providing the precise date of the News of the World publication of the photograph in 1976. If it was ten years prior to him leaving wicca that would mean he left wicca in 1986 and not 1982, as stated earlier by him on this thread.
For Farrant "turning to write full-time" read "writing the occasional letter to his local newspaper and eventually (but not until 1991) self-publishing a series of libellous tracts and pamphlets at tax payers expense." I say at tax payers expense because during this entire period Farrant was drawing state benefits as a social security claimant. This has been confirmed by just about everyone who knew him both before and after his term inside prison, including his most recent (now ex-) girlfriend.
What about the photograph of Farrant, clearly aged sixty, again in his dressing-gown, before the altar with black candles in his Muswell Hill bedsit? This appeared in another News of the World article about his ongoing witchcraft claims in October 2006.
By my calculation that is a whopping twenty-four years AFTER Farrant is supposed to have abandoned witchcraft!
Farrant simply can't do the maths. But everyone else obviously can.
Absolute classic! The verbal sparing between David Farrant and "demonologist" over essentially nothing is very entertaining, if a little disturbing. I mean, who really gives a shit whether or not Manchester visited David in prison? The real issues here, as presented by Don Ecker, are being purposefully ignored.
Mindset said;
"The real issues here, as presented by Don Ecker, are being purposefully ignored."
Thank you Mindset! As we all know, or should providing anyone here has at least 1/2 oz. of "greymatter" the entire idea of Vampires or Vampyr's is ABSOLUTE BULLSHIT. Once everyone acknowledge that, everything else falls to pieces. Do you hear that Sean? Real, supernatural Vampires in the real world ... not your version of same, is this;
Vampires = Bullshit
That Mindset, is why he ignores my question.
Oh yes, now back to my life.
Hi Mindset. Well this might amuse you even more:
In 1973 (please note 1973) the News of the World visited my flat in Highgate to do a story. Present was NOW reported Sue Kentish and her photographer, Eda Street (now deseased), a character who called himself 'The Magister' with his (then) girlfriend, and, of course.
The point is, that during the course of this ritual, The 'Magister' 'accidently' set fire to my altar using insence and sulphur.
Now on the wall was a picture of the Horned God dyed onto a sheet. This was destroyed in the flames.
The News of the World published photograph showing this same sheet in an article titled "What goes on at this house in Highgate? on September 19th 1976.
The sub-headline was "We expose Satanism, black magic and sex orgies in the respectible surburbs of Highgate". Al good stuff - I suppose!
But the point is, that 'muriel' of this Hornned God had been taken at another house in Kensington - 4 YEARS EARLIER!
"Demonologist" is now trying to convice everyone here was taken in 1976 (or at a later time anyway)and is calling myself a liar for saying it wasn't.
This is really conclusive proof that "demonologist" is an extremely confused old man.
Its really very simple: how could that same portrait on this sheet have been photographed in 1976 when everyone had witnessed it being burned to ashes in 1973?
Perhaps "demonologist" would care to answer this?
Well come on "demomologist". Everybody is waiting!
David Farrant
Don, you are 100% on the money with this one. Glad to see you are still involved in exposing BS. I still remember UFO's Tonite, great stuff. If you go to Coco's "Keep your eyes on the pies" :-)
David, looks like your perseverance is finally winning through, as bonky is now widely viewed as a nut job. If he wasn't so annoying he'd be pitied.
For the record, David Farrant was at no time ever a member of the British Occult Society. He was, however, extremely fond of feeding the press with photographs of his stunts. This is what Peter Hounam, editor of the Hornsey Journal, 16 July 1974, wrote:
“Farrant was a fool. Fascinated by witchcraft … he couldn’t keep his interests to himself. He was a blatant publicist. He told this newspaper of his activities, sent photographs and articles describing his bizarre activities.”
And this is what is recorded in the Finchley Press, 22 February 1980:
“On Monday, Seán Manchester, president of the British Occult Society, disclaimed any connection between Mr Farrant and the society. … Seán Manchester believes that Mr Farrant’s activities — including the libel action [which Farrant lost] — have been publicity-seeking.”
David V Barrett allowed himself to become an extension to David Farrant's hate campaign against Seán Manchester in Fortean Times (FT250). Reviewing Farrant's sef-published autobiography (a mish-mash of most of the malice he has previously self-published) under the heading "Blood Feud," Barrett makes a number of false assertions about Seán Manchester and indeed the British Occult Society. He repeats Farrant's fabrication that Seán Manchester was expelled by Farrant when it is a matter of public record that Farrant owed no connection to the British Occult Society who were among the first to expose Farrant in the media as an interloping charlatan. Others followed suit. Barrett describes Seán Manchester as a "publicity seeker" when this is precisely what Farrant was exposed as being by newspapers, magistrates and judges alike. Much of the reference in Barrett's review is defamatory and Fortean Times have made the serious error of not understanding that to repeat a libel from elsewhere is no excuse in law. Farrant has managed to manipulate, and not for the first time, Fortean Times via David V Barrett into doing his dirty work, and, once again, they have been handsomely duped.
Well I see you are now posting as 'anonymous', "demonologist".
Just another attempt to avoid answering my points on here.
Nice try, Sean. But I'm afraid until you stop using aliases or false identities, nobody - but nobody - is going to believe you!
David Farrant
I am not Seán Manchester. Farrant accuses everyone who challenges him of being Seán Manchester. Farrant threatened to descend on Seán Manchester's private residence on the latter's birthday, but failed to carry it out. He made the same threat five years ago, and also failed to carry it out. Why didn't this twisted non-entity actually turn up as promised? Compulsive publicity-seeker Farrant continues to seek attention and make a general nuisance of himself.
I am not Demonologist. I am not Sean Manchester, I am Anonymous.
What a dope...
ONLY ONE
Yes, even more of a 'dope', Mindset, because everyone knows who he really is!
There are NOT loads of people 'attacking' me.
In reality there's only ONE going under different pathetic disguises - and that ONE is really HIM! I'd use a stronger word than 'dope'. 'Sick' maybe!
David Farrant
Anonymous is not Seán Manchester. I am Seán Manchester. My wife gave me a lot of little pills and I feel better. My keyboard is possessed and I must exorcise it. Please wait whilst I get my saxophone and toodle loudly for the demonic entities to depart. If I'm a good boy, my wife will fetch me ice cream.
The person you name,"Anonymous", would never have the courage to come on here under his real name. That is really the whole point!
So, over to you again "dempnologist"!
David Farrant
If you are not who are pretending to be - rather, pretending not to be - then how come is it that you always seem to remember to put an accent over the 'a' in 'Sean', "demonologist"?
The mind truly boggles!
David Farrant
Firstly, Deme: "Dye, Farrant, Dye! But why lie about the dye?"
What the hell?
Second, let me ask you this, Deme: are you Dennis Crawford? Yes or no.
Now, David. Ok, I'll buy your line about the Varma stuff. But keep in mind, you make a serious accusation about a guy who's been dead for 15 years.
Thus, you should at least have the courtesy of validating your claim.
In turn, I'll contact Youngson about this Manchester and Varma stuff.
But do keep up your end of the bargain.
And, while we're at it, why don't you post up some scans (not transcripts) of this alleged Manchester-you correspondence.
Don,
If we bring up the issue as to whether or not a vampire was staked, etc., then we must equally raise the issue of whether a "vampirelike" entity with glowing "red eyes" was present at the Cemetery, as well.
There's two sides to the supernatural coin, here.
"Well I see you are now posting as 'anonymous', demonologist. Just another attempt to avoid answering my points on here," stutters Farrant.
I leave posting anonymously to others and, as an IP check will confirm, "Anonymous" is not me. I invite John Baldry's Cat to verify what I am saying and yet once again kick Farrant into touch.
"If you are not who are pretending to be - rather, pretending not to be - then how come is it that you always seem to remember to put an accent over the 'a' in 'Sean', demonologist?" asks Farrant.
I am by no means the only person to spell the Celtic name of "Seán" correctly (so that is sounds as it should). Many people include the accent, especially friends of Seán Manchester. However, the "Anonymous" being referred to on this thread by Farrant (there is obviously more than one) has copied comments from elsewhere where the accent is present. I have absolutely no idea who this particular "Anonymouse" might be.
"It[']s really very simple: how could that same portrait on this sheet have been photographed in 1976 when everyone had witnessed it being burned to ashes in 1973? Perhaps demonologist would care to answer this? Well come on demomologist [sic]. Everybody is waiting!" blurts Farrant.
Everyone? Who is everyone? I didn't witness it, nor did anyone else I can bring to mind. There is only one person claiming it "burned to ashes" and that person is a compulsive liar by the name of Farrant. I am still waiting to learn how the News of the World published the alleged photograph at a time when Farrant was locked up in a prison cell? This confirms what I have said all along, namely that Farrant had an agent on the outside selling his pictures to the press. That is how New Witchcraft magazine received naked photographs of Victoria Jervis along with a badly written article by Farrant. Even the editor confirmed that the pictures and article came from Farrant, explaining that the grammar and spelling was so appalling he just gave up and left much of it as it stands.
Curiouser and curiouser...
I just started posting on this blog yesterday, and this morning I'm greeted by a Facebook friend request from "Arminius Vámbéry". I'm very much looking forward to hearing from Mr. Vámbéry and his strange tales of the arcane and the paranormal. Ironically, there is nothing on his facebook pages pertaining to his "research" in the arcane and the paranormal, only lots of pictures of David Farrant? What a strange man Mr. Vámbéry must be...
Great stuff though, very entertaining, if a little weird...
Well, even the Fortean Times is not immune to our good ol' Vampire Hunting buddy, Sean Manchester. Following from Net Curtains Lurkers...
Pitches a Hissy with Three Column Rant
Finally I’ve had time to update the blog! With LS on vacation, the Posse is swamped by work. B-Dog and I escaped the office at lunch and we wound up at Barnes and Noble. To make a short story even shorter, we found a three column rant by Sean himself in this month’s Fortean Times magazine.
On page 70 of the September US Edition (FT252), Sean replicates the usual cut and paste tirade found on numerous blogs and forums concerning arch rival David Farrant – this time in print and signing his name to the tantrum. It appears the Fortean Times has drawn the Bishop’s wrath for daring to review David’s current book, In the Shadow of the Highgate Vampire, in a previous issue.
Under the Letter section, Sean storms wasting three columns of ink: “The review of David Farran’t self-published autobiography [FT250:63], repeats Farrant’s description of me as a “publicity seeker.” In fact, my aversion to superfluous and sensationalist publicity has been partly responsible for Farrant filling the void where the Highgate Cemetery happenings are concerned, despite his involvement being spurious. “
What follows is the same cut and paste tirade seen thousands of times: David Farrant was involved in witchcraft; David Farrant sacrificed a cat; David Farrant was photographed with a stake; blah, blah, blah.
Yep Gang, same old Crap. However this is even more interesting....
Hilariously, Sean trips himself up and outs himself by admitting he’s following the feud on the Internet. Feud watchers will remember Sean and his sock puppets have long stated the most High Bishop is far to busy to bother with the Internet.
Now Sean Ol' Buddy, answer my question ... Was that a Real Supernatural Vampire ... and did you really stake him? Oh yeah, and Jackie too??
MORE CONFUSED DEMONOLOGY BY THE MINUTE!
It’s hard to imagine how anybody could be so confused in the light of hard facts, ‘Demonologist’!
I am sure everybody here has understood what I said about the News of the World ‘witch photographs’ (the ones of me with the nude girl).
You have been trying to maintain that these were taken in or around 1994, or 1996 (in any event that’s when they were published in the newspaper). However, I explained to you that these photographs had been taken at another location in 1972. I also explained that the Horned God shown on the background wall was destroyed by fire when the News of the World visited my flat in Highgate to do an article on myself. A person who called himself ‘The Magister’ was demonstrating a magical ritual to NoW reporter Sue Kentish, and five other people were present (including myself).
The Magister was lighting some incense but had also placed some sulphur powder in a container on the altar. This ‘accidentally’ caused a major fire, and the portrait of the Horned God (dyed on to a sheet) caught fire and was burnt to ashes.
Now, the interesting bit, which you seem to have overlooked.
Before this ceremony started, the News of the World photographer took several pictures of The Magister standing in front of the altar (in fact, if you look at his face closely it is quite clear who this person really was, or is!)
When the article of myself appeared, on 23rd September 1973 (please note, 1973), the one of The Magister and the Horned God in the background was also published.
All I was asking you is, how come this same coloured mural appeared in the News of the World in 1994 (and used again in 1996), when it had been burnt to ashes in 1973, and this had been witnessed by several people?
So far, you are still refusing to answer this. Why? Obviously, because it confirms you were either lying or genuinely confused – or both!
Once again, ‘Demonologist’, the set of photographs that later appeared in the News of the World were taken in 1972, when I WAS still involved in Wicca.
Although I left Wicca in 1982, I still continued to give talks and interviews about the subject, as I was considered to be an authority on its innermost teachings. (In fact, I am giving a talk next month on this very same subject.)
Your reasoning, ‘Demonologist’, on the whole subject, is perverse, and misguided, to say the least!
This does not really surprise me, because you have never been able to understand Wicca’s true doctrines, Sean (oh, sorry again, I forgot, ‘Demonologist’!), and have always confused this with Satanism and Black Magic, just as you are confused about other issues here.
Incidentally, have you still got ‘your Magister mask’, Sean?
David Farrant.
P.S. You still owe me money for some of those destroyed items on my altar.
Are you lads having fun? Don't break anything, and please tidy up after your selves.
"I explained to you that these photographs had been taken at another location in 1972," protests Farrant.
I don't believe him, but it is obviously irrelevant to the fact that the article for which they were used in July 1994 clearly has Farrant still claiming to be a practitioner of witchcraft, a high priest no less, when he now claims he abandoned it in 1982.
"I also explained that the Horned God shown on the background wall was destroyed by fire when the News of the World visited my flat in Highgate to do an article on myself," Farrant regurgitates.
But Farrant's "explanation" is his merely his word whereas previously he claimed "everyone had witnessed it being burned to ashes in 1973." Clearly only he "witnessed" it, and he is the person who allegedly also witnessed a seven foot corpse with burning red eyes hovering above the ground at Swains Lane in early 1970 (according to television interviews he gave at the time.)
"So far, you are still refusing to answer this. Why? Obviously, because it confirms you were either lying or genuinely confused – or both!" exclaims Farrant.
I have now answered it twice. The answer is I don't believe Farrant or anything he blurts out. Who else does he produce to substantiate his claim? Nobody other than himself!
"Although I left Wicca in 1982, I still continued to give talks and interviews about the subject, as I was considered to be an authority on its innermost teachings," stammers Farrant somewhat unonvincingly.
First, I don't accept for a moment that Farrant was ever genuinely involved in wicca (witchcraft) or anything else vaguely esoteric. He used witchcraft as a means to an end, the end being self-publicity.
Second, the articles in the News of the World (17 July 1994 and 31 October 2006) don't refer to any "talks" Farrant was about to give. They refer to his claims at the time regarding witchcraft initiations with himself as high priest. The articles make clear that these were current claims and not reflections from the past.
Third, who exactly "considers [Farrant] to be an authority on [wicca's] innermost teachings"? Can Farrant identify just one person who is in a position to answer, eg an expert on witchcraft or a recognised practitioner of wicca whose opinion means something? He will be unable to produce anyone because he is regarded within the wiccan community as a publicity-seeking charlatan.
LIES GET BONKIER AND BONKIER!
Quoting myself (and yourself) “Demonologist” you state:
"I also explained that the Horned God shown on the background wall was destroyed by fire when the News of the World visited my flat in Highgate to do an article on myself," Farrant regurgitates.
But Farrant's "explanation" is his merely his word whereas previously he claimed "everyone had witnessed it being burned to ashes in 1973." Clearly only he "witnessed" it, and he is the person who allegedly also witnessed a seven foot corpse with burning red eyes hovering above the ground at Swains Lane in early 1970 (according to television interviews he gave at the time.)”
Now I can SHOW everyone what a liar you really are “Demonologist”:
The burning sheet of the Horned God was witnessed by five other people – not least yourself and News of the World reporter, Sue Kentish.
She wrote a sub-article at the end of her main article “UNMASKED – This evil High Priest of witchcraft” published on 23rd September 1973 [as in ‘1973’]. The sub-article was titled : “When an altar caught fire”.
Sue Kentish wrote . . . “REPORTER Sue Kentish attended a witchcraft ritual at Farrant’s flat one night and was instructed by a high officer in the cult to sit by the ‘magical altar’. She writes:
‘The Magister started transferring mixtures from one container to the other on the altar and then set light to some powder. It flared. Then he ignited some red liquid bubbling in a glass goblet.
The brew bubbled over and flames flickered on the altar. They spread up a picture of Baccus on the wall and licked the ceiling. The fire gave out thick choking sulphurous smoke. Farrant leapt to the altar, tore down the picture, flung open the door and threw it out.
The Magister and his assistant ran down the road. As one of the others said to me, ‘he looked as if he had the Devil at his heels’.
Farrant told me: ‘I tried to utter the words of banishment when I realized it was going wrong but the fire caught hold too rapidly. I’m sorry this has happened. I always seem to be unlucky’.
Flaming rubbish, I say”.
[NOW Sept 23 1973}
So WHO’S lying “Demonologist”?
Incidentally, I never claimed that the entity I witnessed at Highgate Cemetery was a ‘vampire’. Neither was I the person who claimed to have tracked down the King Vampire’ and staked it through the heart before incinerating it with a can of petrol! Then claimed to have later staked its disciple after trespassing in a lonely graveyard in 1982 after it had changed into a ‘giant spider’! That was yet another of Bonky’s self created publicity stuns.
I have PROVED here what you stated was a deliberate distortion of what actually occurred. People here would now be entitled to ask just how many more of the newspaper reports you keep pasting concerning myself have been similarly distorted?
I leave it for you all to decide good people! Who do you believe? Bonky or myself?
David Farrant, President, British Psychic and Occult Society.
"The burning sheet of the Horned God was witnessed by five other people – not least yourself and News of the World reporter, Sue Kentish," squeals Farrant.
We obviously need to hear from Sue Kentish, wherever she might be, because I know I wasn't present and I very much doubt anyone other than Farrant and three others, one being the newspaper's photographer, another being the investigative journalist, were present. Sue Kentish, at least, can confirm that this piece of fabricated sensationalism occurred at Farrant's home - the same place where the naked photographs were taken of a bound girl. I doubt there was any fire as described. This sounds like the usual invention by a Sunday newspaper; just like the orgiastic scene of Farrant deflowering virgins at Hallowe'en 2006 in the same newspaper.
If we are going to accept what the newspaper published in September 1973 about an altar fire, we must also accept the rest of the article where Farrant is described by Sue Kentish as a "scruffy witch" who "could be laughed at but for the results of his actions. But no one can laugh at a man who admits slitting the throat of a live cat before launching a blood-smeared orgy. Or at a man who has helped reduce at least two young women to frightened misery."
Now that is what Sue Kentish wrote about Farrant. It gets progressively worse as the article proceeds, culminating in an eye-witness report of Farrant "severing a cat's head with a dagger [as] all the participants smeared themselves with blood before indulging in sex."
If Farrant protests that none of that happened, why should we believe the altar fire happened? They both appear in the same article. He can't pick and choose his fabricated collaborations with sensationalist newspapers.
"I never claimed that the entity I witnessed at Highgate Cemetery was a ‘vampire’," protests Farrant.
I didn't mention the word "vampire." The programme, however, did. The interviewer asked Farrant: "What did this vampire look like?" Farrant didn't say it wasn't a vampire and went on to describe something corpse-like which glided off the path and emanated evil. The front page of the Hampstead & Highgate Express, 6 March 1970, also makes interesting reading:
“Mr David Farrant, 24, who reported seeing a ghost last month, returned to the spot last weekend and discovered a dead fox. ‘Several other foxes have also been found dead in the cemetery,’ he said at his home in Priestwood Mansions, Archway Road, Highgate. ‘The odd thing is there was no outward sign of how they died. Much remains unexplained, but what I have recently learnt all points to the vampire theory as being the most likely answer. Should this be so, I for one am prepared to pursue it, taking whatever means might be necessary so that we can all rest'."
Does Farrant now deny this is what was reported in his local newspaper and that these quotes are his accurately reported words?
"I have PROVED here what you stated was a deliberate distortion of what actually occurred," screams Farrant.
No he hasn't. Farrant is in complete denial about everything he said and did four decades ago. This is what was reported by Barrie Simmons, accompanied by a selection of photographs showing David Farrant stalking a vampire with Christian cross and sharpened stake in the Evening News, 16 October 1970:
"I joined a macabre hunt among the desecrated graves and tombs for the vampire of Highgate Cemetery. ... David [Farrant], 24, was all set, kitted out with all the gear required by any self-respecting vampire hunter. Clutched under his arm, in a Sainsbury's carrier bag, he held the tools of his trade. There was a cross made out of two bits of wood tied together with a shoelace and a stake to plunge through the heart of the beast. Vampire hunting is a great art. There is no point in just standing around waiting for the monster to appear. It must be stalked. So we stalked. Cross in one hand to ward off the evil spirits, stake in the other, held at the ready. David stalked among the vaults, past the graves, in the bushes and by the walls. When we had finished he started stalking all over again."
I leave it for readers to decide. Who do you believe? Farrant or the public record of his television and press interviews?
Farrant signs off as "President, British Psychic and Occult Society." There is no such organisation and never has been. Whenever Farrant opens a forum or message board in the name of the "BPOS" he attracts a handful of the usual curious surfers from far flung corners of the world, but absolutely no members. That is because the so-called "British Psychic and Occult Society" has only ever had one member and that is Farrant himself.
It's all very sad really. He hurls abuse at someone not even present while failing to realise that the only person who is bonkers is himself.
"I WAS NOT EVEN THERE"
I am not going to answer all your usual cut n' pasted "Demonologist" (aka Sean) except this . . .Now that is what Sue Kentish wrote about Farrant. It gets progressively worse as the article proceeds, culminating in an eye-witness report of Farrant "severing a cat's head with a dagger [as] all the participants smeared themselves with blood before indulging in sex."
What you fail to point out, Sean, is that the French girl who told this story invented it, in a vain attempt to 'get back' at myself after she had 'caught me in bed' with her girl compamion (another French girl). To say she was furious would be putting it mildly!
Accordingly, she later told another untrue to The News of the World that I was a 'Casanova Witch' and a 'Failure as a Lover' - story that te NOW printed.
I took a libel action against the News of the World over her untrue remarks and WON the case with considerable costs and damages. Interestly, the girl was located by the NOW by she could not be enticed by them to attend Court. I also had her address but when I appeared before a Master at the High Court before the case, he ruled that France was outside the juristriction of the UK and she could therefore bot be compelled to return.
But aside from this, I won the case. You are well aware of these fats, "Demonologist", so why have you withheld them here?
Bonky tried to 'cash in' on this case for self-publicity purposes: indeed I have him on tape trying to suponea himself as a witness. He suggested he could turn up at Court in a horse-drawn hearse, which would 'guarantee publicity'. I was having none of his wild schemes so I dealt with the case - and won!
You are not making a very good job of desperately trying to 're-write history', "Demonologist" - in fact, just digging yourself in deeper and deeper!
Another essential point "Demonologist", you say you couldn't know what happened because you were 'not even there'.
Well, you've just demolished your own story. Because if you 'wern't even there', how could you possibly know what happened??
Perhaps you could answer that for us all, "Demonologist"??
We are all waiting in anticipation!
David Farrant, President', BPOS
"What you fail to point out is that the French girl who told this story invented it," alleges Farrant.
So everyone else is "inventing" everything except Farrant? Right? Wrong! It's Farrant who's in the business of fabricating stories, as revealed by those who have investigated and written about him, plus Crown lawyers commenting about his behaviour.
"I took a libel action against the News of the World over her untrue remarks and WON the case with considerable costs and damages," claims Farrant.
Farrant won on a technicality because he had so frightened the newspaper's only witness she went into hiding and they obviously had no case as a result. However, the judge ruled that Farrant should only receive the derisory sum of £50 in damages. Few people would regard £50 (fifty pounds) as "considerable damages" when others who win libel cases are awarded millions!
"Another essential point Demonologist, you say you couldn't know what happened because you were 'not even there'. Well, you've just demolished your own story. Because if you 'wern't [sic] even there', how could you possibly know what happened?? Perhaps you could answer that for us all, Demonologist?? We are all waiting in anticipation!" blusters an agitated Farrant.
(Incidentally, when Farrant uses "we" who is he referring to other than himself? After all, he is the only member of his non-existent "British Psychic and Occult Society" and he has certainly not provided evidence to the contrary.)
I previously responded to Farrant saying ...
"The burning sheet of the Horned God was witnessed by five other people – not least yourself and News of the World reporter, Sue Kentish."
... with the comment:
"We obviously need to hear from Sue Kentish, wherever she might be, because I know I wasn't present ..."
... which, in my estimation, would demolish Farrant were she ever to be produced because she definitely was present.
Observers will again witness how Farrant has completely avoided addressing his actions, television interviews and quotes attributed to him in the highly respectable Hampstead & Highgate Express, 6 March 1970, regarding vampires.
Firstly, Dave:
I've contacted Youngson and she confirms what you said about Varma. I've posted her response in my latest blog entry.
I'd still like to see your own correspondence with him, though.
Second: if you did indeed give up on Wicca a) why did you b) why are you in wiccan dress for the 2006 Hallowe'en article?
Also, if you claim that Manchester hopped on board for publicity's sakes, then, again, why did you stalk about cemeteries with a cross and stake in hand? Did Barrie Simmons force you into doing this, or was he lying?
Deme:
"Even the editor confirmed that the pictures and article came from Farrant, explaining that the grammar and spelling was so appalling he just gave up and left much of it as it stands."
So you've been in correspondence with the editor of New Witchcraft? What was his name and where is the correspondence that confirms your claims?
Nothing of the kind.
Brian Netscher published those comments in the form of an "editor's note" in New Witchcraft magazine (regarding the article and pictures he had received from Farrant), and that is how I know about them.
I did warn that Jeanne Keyes Youngson would back Farrant to the hilt.
Youngson, an Aliester Crowley apologist, absolutely despises Seán Manchester (largely due to his views on vampiroids and malefic occultists) and has regurgitated much of Farrant's hateful propaganda in her own tracts and newsletters down the years. Her references to Dr Varma with regard to Bishop Manchester are without foundation and, of course, unsubstantiated.
Once again, Farrant avoids dealing with his past vampire claims.
Yes, Farrant does avoid his vampire-hunting shenanigans again. Unsurprisingly.
But as to what you said about Youngson and her interaction with Varma is "without foundation"...keep in mind that this is what she said:
"As for Varma, he spent two extra days with us here in New York visiting the Dracula Museum. It was very exciting to spend quality time with such a learned man. He said one of the worst mistakes he had ever made was to have anything at all to do with Manchester."
So, you're basically saying either a) Youngson lied b) that you were actually a wallflower during his visit to the Dracula Museum and never heard him utter anything of the kind.
So which is it?
Did you actually know Varma yourself?
And speaking of dodging things, I previously asked you: "are you Dennis Crawford? Yes or no."
So, which is it?
I WAS NOT THERE [sic]
I have published what Sue Kentish wrote about the private witchcraft ceremony at my flat in 1976 when the altar fire took place.
You stated "Demonologist" that you were not there.
I asked you that if you were not there, how could you have known what really happened? You have deliberately avoided this and tried again to distract it with other issues (that I have already addressed here).
My question is very simple, "Demonologist", although a vital one.
You have admitted you were not present, so my question again is, how could you possibly know what happened when you were not there?
It am sure everybody here will be wondering why you have deliberately avoided this question.
So why not surprise us all, Sean, and answer this question!
David Farrant
FOR OVERSEER
(Re:I WAS NOT THERE!)
Firstly Overeer,
I have explained the present difficulty with the scanner. It is not compatible with this later computer so everything needs to be done manually by transferring discs. I am in the process of getting the problem sorted out.
Secondly, I made a mistake – although it was not a deliberate one. The portrait of the Horned God (which was destroyed by a fire on the altar in 1973) was published in the News of the World in 1976 and again in 1994 – it was not published by the NOW in 2006 as I think I originally said. (There are so many newspaper reports it is sometimes hard to keep track of them!).
The colour photograph of myself standing by the altar was headlined “We’ll take teen’s virginity tonight” (and before you even ask, ‘no’, I didn’t say that, they did!) and showed the framed ‘coat of arms’ of the British Psychic and Occult Society on the wall behind me if I remember rightly. I cannot remember the exact date the photograph was taken but I believe it was during an interview I gave in my flat in 2004. I was wrong about this, but as I say, this was not intentional.
Now, although I left Wicca in 1982, I still kept the altar up in my flat for many years afterwards. (In fact it was only taken down last year due to all the decoration). I have continually explained during Talks or filmed interviews, that the purpose of this was purely symbolic and also for the benefit of other psychics and Wiccans who still used to visit me (and still do).
But this point is really academic.
The whole purpose of this exchange was to clarify “Demonologist’s” erroneous confused statements that the picture of the ‘bound girl’ (showing the Muriel of the Horned God on the wall) served as ‘proof’ that I was still involved in witchcraft. I explained that the ‘Horned God’ picture (also showing the nude girl) had been destroyed by fire in 1973.
“Demonologist” has called me a liar (as also Sue Kentish and the NOW photographer) despite the fact that I have provided proof that his claims are confused and wrong.
The latest is that “Demonologist” has finally admitted that he was ‘not there’ when this fire took place.
My question followed that if he was ‘not there’, how he could possibly know what happened?
We are all still waiting for an answer!
David Farrant
"My question followed that if he was ‘not there’, how he could possibly know what happened?" asks Farrant.
It hardly matters who was there. Sue Kentish definitely was there and I have made the suggestion of her being contacted and questioned.
What matters is that if we accept the altar fire, we must also accept the remainder of the article. Farrant doesn't grasp this simple concept and is careful to avoid reproducing any of the principal feature in the News of the World, 23 September 1973, much less will he comment on it.
This is how Sue Kentish's article opens:
"By day, 29-year-old David Farrant is a hospital porter. But at night, he takes on a far less valuable role. He is High Priest of a witchcraft coven and as founder of the weird British Occult Society [sic], has an evil hold over 300 misguided people. But for the results of his actions, this scruffy little witch could be laughed at. But no one can laugh at a man who admits slitting the throat of a live cat before launching a blood-smeared orgy. Or at a man who has helped reduce at least two young women to frightened misery. Farrant runs his wretched cult from a cluttered flat above a chemist's shop in Archway Road, Highgate, London. When I first met him, he seemed normal enough. But over the course of a few weeks, I got to know him better. I found him to be totally besotted by witchcraft and the occult and ready to do anything in pursuit of both."
Farrant is later quoted as saying:
"My curses have never failed, as far as I know. Situations have always righted themselves after I put a curse on. Others will tell you how I reduced one man to a mental breakdown and in the end he begged me to remove the curse."
Sue Kentish continues:
"One woman drawn into Farrant's loathsome cult is 42-year-old Mrs Sadie MacVie. A divorcee with a teenage daughter, she explained how she encountered the witches. 'I suddenly turned cold towards the fellow I was going with. I didn't want to sleep with him any more'."
Earlier in the same article, Farrant describes a ritual sacrifice he undertook and is quoted as saying:
"I did not enjoy having to kill the cat, but for one particular part of the ritual it was necessary. The sacrifice of a living creature represents the ultimate act in invoking a diety. I do not see animal sacrifice as drastic as people have made it out to be ... at least, I anathaesthetised the cat before I had to kill it."
Sue Kentish continues:
"With a shrug of the shoulders he admitted mercilessly: "If somebody crosses me or my friends, I will use a curse, but only if it becomes necessary as a last resort'."
I would be interested to know exactly how Farrant went about anathaesthetising cats before driving a ritual dagger into them?
Earlier that year, Farrant is supposed to have destroyed Seán Manchester with a curse, according to the national press. However, he failed to face his would-be "victim" who had told him to do his worst. Farrant's curse had absolutely no effect and his threats in the media against all manner of people suddenly became impotent. Seán Manchester had done his job in that respect.
Just an amusing side note...
I wrote up a blog entry uncovering Deme as Dennis Crawford ("More Clues on TFO's Identity"), thanks to his profile (as "Vampirologist") on Bloody Feather.
No sooner had I written it up, but his profile mysteriously vanished.
However, what he didn't seem to realise was, that BF shows a list of members online, at the time.
And sure enough, guess who was there (despite the account being practically inactive since 2006).
Nice try, Dennis!
A note to David: I know you regard Deme to be Manchester, so you'll have to play along here.
I WAS NOT THERE - STILL NO ANSWER!
You have again avoided answering my question, "Demonologist".
Sue Kentish has been "contacted" as such because I printed her account of the ritual altar fire here. Are you saying she was lying, "Demonologist"? Why don't you contact her and ask her? Should.t be too difficult because - as far as I know -she is still in the NUJ.
I asked YOU, "Demonologist", how you could state there was no altar fire when you admit you were not even present? That is the point you are carefully avoiding "Demonologist".
FOR OVERSEER
Why don't you contact Sue Kentish, Overseer?
Then you can see for yourself what a liar "Demonologist" really is.
You might even care to ask her if she still has the secret tape recording she made of the Magister just before he caused the fire. That would certainly disclose the true identity of the Magister'!
Worth a go though surely? Though might sound better coming from you!
David Farrant
"Why don't you contact Sue Kentish?" bluffs Farrant (13 September 2009 @ 6:07 PM)
His comment was preceded by my own:
"We obviously need to hear from Sue Kentish," Demonologist (12 September 2009 @ 4.46PM)
"Sue Kentish definitely was there and I have made the suggestion of her being contacted and questioned,
" Demonologist (13 September 2009 @ 5.39PM)
"I left Wicca in 1982." - David Farrant (5 September 2009 @ 3:23 PM)
Farrant nevertheless appeared as a "High Priest" of Wicca (witchcraft) in the News of the World newspaper in October 2006 and earlier in July 1994. Photographs of him dressed in witchcraft garb at his home-made altar appear alongside both articles in which he is quoted at length to the effect that he claimed to be a high priest of witchcraft. The newspaper would not have published such claims unless Farrant has made them. Remember, this is the same newspaper Farrant had sued for libel in the 1970s and received the amazing sum of £50 damages.
MORE CONFUSION
I was not featured in the News of the World in October 2006, "Demonologist". That was in the Sun. The newspaper claimed that I was to Initiate 200 virgins that Hallowe'en at a 'witchcraft ceremony'.
Actually, the newspaper got it wrong, "Demonologist", and exaggerated. It was 199!
For God's sake grow up "Demonologist" and stop coming out with all this bulldust!
Who cares what newspapers speculate about 'witchcraft'! I don't and certainly never have done.
Quite honestly, you can believe what you want, it doesn't bother me!
However, what is blatantly obvious though to all and sundry here, is how you've refused to tell us how you know what occurred during a private 'witchcraft' gathering back in 1973, when you have admitted you were not even there!
The mind truly boggles!
Change the subject "Demonologist". Everybody must be getting tired of it!
David Farrant
The Sun and the News of the World are part of the same publishing group; the latter appearing on a Sunday with The Sun appearing from Monday to Saturday.
"Who cares what newspapers speculate about 'witchcraft'! I don't and certainly never have done," claims Farrant.
The newspapers in question were NOT "speculating about witchcraft." They were reporting news stories about David Farrant which had obviously been fed to them. They quoted David Farrant at length, so he must have spoken to them. And they used photographs of Farrant dressed up as a witch in front of a witchcraft altar in his home. If they were completely inventing their stories and fabricating quotes from Farrant, why didn't he sue them, or, at least, get a retraction published?
"You've refused to tell us how you know what occurred during a private 'witchcraft' gathering back in 1973, when you have admitted you were not even there!" exclaims Farrant.
Nobody reading this thread knows apart from those present which includes the young girl photograpged bound and naked with Farrant brandishing a dagger over her head. Let's find that girl. What a story she could tell! Somehow I don't think Farrant is going to prove very helpful in that department.
"Change the subject Demonologist. Everybody must be getting tired of it!" begs Farrant.
How can anyone change a subject when it hasn't been addressed? I asked Farrant to explain how he went about anathaesthetising cats before driving a ritual dagger into them? So far no answer has been forthcoming.
To give the question context, here is what Farrant was quoted as saying in the News of the World, 23 September 1973:
"I did not enjoy having to kill the cat, but for one particular part of the ritual it was necessary. The sacrifice of a living creature represents the ultimate act in invoking a diety. I do not see animal sacrifice as drastic as people have made it out to be ... at least, I anathaesthetised the cat before I had to kill it."
Another question for Farrant is why is there no actual evidence of any of his so-called curses ever working despite his boast in the same newspaper?
This is what he said:
"My curses have never failed, as far as I know. Situations have always righted themselves after I put a curse on. Others will tell you how I reduced one man to a mental breakdown and in the end he begged me to remove the curse."
Well? Waiting ...
150
BOOOOOOOM!
CONVENIENT SHORT MEMORY?
You seem to forget "Demonologist" these matters were all clarified in Court in 1981 when Sue Kentish was called to give evidence in my libel case against the News of the World.
I WON the case after the Court had heard all the evidence.
I am certainly not going to go through all the evidence in that long case with you here, "Demonologist". I have no need to when most of what Sue Kentish alleged (not to mention the things she left out of her story)was disproved to be either inaccurate or untrue in Court.
You really must be getting desperate when you try and over-turn the decidion of a Court, "Demonologist" - still you do this all the time with criminal cases in which I was later acquitted, so that does not really surprise me!
Again, "Demonologist", you were not even there (in Court)at the time so (yet again) you are not qualified to know the true facts. (Anymore than you could know what happened about the 'witchcraft altar fire'.
I suggested 'changing the subject' because you have have answered none of my questions here and people must be getting fed up with your personal speculations and down-right lies.
Add to that, everybody knows you you really are and that your remarks are only really motivated by personal spite.
I am sure most people would accept the evidence as examined by a competent Court as opposed to accepting the claims of some nutcase about his percieved enemies!
Whilst I admit to finding most of your claims amusing, I can't imagine that I speak for other people!
David Farrant
"You seem to forget Demonologist these matters were all clarified in Court in 1981 when Sue Kentish was called to give evidence in my libel case against the News of the World," protests Farrant.
Let's be clear, notwithstanding Farrant's habit of calling to court anyone he holds a grudge against to cause them maximum inconvenience, the News of the World article of 23 September 1973 is NOT the one Farrant sued over. The September 1970 article was the one in which, apart from all I have previously outlined, Martine de Sacy offers a graphic description of a supposed graveyard orgy and cat sacrifice with Farrant.
The article Farrant sued the News of the World over also mentions Martine de Sacy, but for completely different reasons.
Farrant is attempting to give the impression that he sued the newspaper over such as Sue Kentish revealed in September 1970. He did not.
The article Farrant sued over was published on 30 June 1974 (not 23 September 1973) under the headline “Casanova Witch A Failure As Lover.”
This article was less about witchcraft than allegations of Farrant selling nude photographs of Martine de Sacy in his local pub and her suggesting that his constant attention-seeking was to compensate for his failed libido.
Under libel law the onus is on the publisher to prove what has been printed and de Sacy could not be found anywhere. She had, in fact, disappeared to France under instruction. Farrant won the libel case on this technicality and was awarded derisory damages of just £50 with costs against him.
Farrant avoids all reference to another libel case against the Daily Express, which he lost and where costs of £20,000 were awarded against him. Taxpayers are still waiting to be reimbursed as Farrant has not repaid a single penny!
Farrant wriggles on the hook and avoids addressing any issues put before him, eg his vampire claims recorded in 1970, his cat sacrifice rituals recorded throughout the 1970s, his curses which we know began at the beginning of that decade, his phoney adoption of an extant Society's name, his abandonment of witchcraft while continuing to seek publicity as a wiccan high priest, his attempts to distort matters on public record, and his many false allegations about others (even when they are dead).
None of this will he address.
More Demonic Distortions
Distortion 1:
The French girl was found, "Demonologist". I knew her address in Paris and the News of the World called into Court as a witness a French reporter who had visited her at this address (On the Boulvard St Gemain).
Distortion 2
The reported stated that he got the impression that she had 'fallen out' in love and accepted that she (the French girl) had been 'very hurt' in love). This was just one reason she had invented stories about myself- including the one about the cat.
Distortion 3
Sue Kentish was called to give evidence about ALL her articles and these were exhibits in the High Court. The jury found that she had either just repeated such stories about myself without checking with the people concerned (except after she had been approached by the French girl) or just reporting random gossip about myself to make a sensational newspaper story. I won the case and was awarded costs and damages.
Now, perhaps YOU can tell us, "Demonologist", how you could state Sue Kentish was lying in her article about the 'witch fire' on the altar in my flat?
I asked how you could possibly know this one way or the other after you stated that you were not there?
So far your silence has been deafening. All you have succeeded in doing, is showing everyone here how you just try to distort any events if these don't happen to suit your most unchristian way of thinking.
What a way to be really: being trapped in a dark world of malice motivated only by hate and counter-hate.
Rather you than me, Sean!
David Farrant
Farrant is merely putting forward what was claimed by those representing him in order to extract damages from the News of the World. It doesn't make it true, and the judge clearly wasn't overwhelmingly convinced when he only granted Farrant £50 damages with costs awarded against him.
"Perhaps YOU can tell us, Demonologist, how you could state Sue Kentish was lying in her article about the 'witch fire' on the altar in my flat?" asks Farrant.
There might well have been a very small fire of some sort, but that of itself does not necessarily prove a massive mural of the Devil's face was destroyed in the process. I did not, in fact, state that Sue Kentish was lying. Indeed, I would very much like to hear what she has to say on the matter if she can be found. What I actually said was that if we accept the fire to be true, we must consider the quotes attributed to Farrant to also be accurate and also her observations of him over a period of time.
This is a typical extract from the article by Sue Kentish in the News of the World, 23 September 1973:
"By day, 29-year-old David Farrant is a hospital porter. But at night, he takes on a far less valuable role. … But for the results of his actions, this scruffy little witch could be laughed at. But no one can laugh at a man who admits slitting the throat of a live cat before launching a blood-smeared orgy. Or a man who has helped reduce at least two young women to frightened misery. … I found him totally besotted by witchcraft and the occult and ready to do anything in pursuit of both. Time and time again, he told me he only did what was ‘necessary,’ or ‘demanded.’ Throughout, he maintained he was a genuine witch who did not worship the devil, indulge in sexual orgies or relinquish all standards of good. But his own story, corroborated by others, proves otherwise. … With a shrug of the shoulders he admitted mercilessly pursuing grievances.” Farrant is then quoted as boasting: 'My curses have never failed, as far as I know. Situations have always righted themselves after I’ve put the curse on. Others will tell you how I reduced one man to a mental breakdown and in the end he begged me to remove the curse'."
Why should we dismiss any of the above when we are asked to accept her recounting a small fire occurring in his room where his makeshift altar stood?
"I asked how you could possibly know this one way or the other after you stated that you were not there? So far your silence has been deafening," repeats Farrant somewhat unimaginatively.
I was the one who stated on this thread much earlier that Farrant's silence was deafening on just about every issue raised. Some of these I listed in my previous post. I have also stated prior that only those present would really know what happened and that I was not one of them, but Sue Kentish was present. So let's find her and ask her side of the story!
As usual, Farrant remains entrenched in his standard distraction technique of falsely identifying me, as if somehow that will take the focus off his past claims in the media, endless contradictions and lies, followed by his latter-day attempts to whitewash what is already recorded.
This won't go away. Farrant has done too much wrong to too many people. He has lied and deceived too many times on public record.
Farrant has attempted to confuse "UNMASKED - this evil high priest of witchcraft" by Sue Kentish in the News of the World, 23 September 1973, WHICH HE DID NOT SUE THE NEWSPAPER OVER, with “Casanova Witch A Failure As Lover” by Peter Earle, News of the World, 30 June 1974, WHICH IS THE ARTICLE HE DID SUE FOR LIBEL OVER.
So what was in Peter Earle's article which so upset Farrant where previous articles describing him as "evil," a "cat slayer" and someone who "cursed" people causing them to have breakdowns, did not drive him to sue for libel?
This is how “Casanova Witch A Failure As Lover” by Peter Earle, News of the World, 30 June 1974, begins:
"Au pair Martine de Sacy has exposed the fantasy world of David Farrant, self-styled high priest of British witchcraft, for whom she posed nude in front of a tomb. Farrant was convicted last week by a jury who heard stories of Satanic rites, vampires and death-worship with girls dancing in a cemetery. Afterwards, 23-year-old Martine, said: 'David didn't do these ridiculous things in the cemetery for sex, I assure you. He was a failure as a lover. In fact, I think his trouble was that he was seeking compensation for this. He was always after publicity and he felt that having all these girls around helped. I'm sure the night he took me to the cemetery had less to do with occultism than his craving to be the centre of something.' ... Farrant fired his counsel and defended himself, in a welter of witchcraft while the people who really knew him laughed at his antics. While Martine told her story in Paris, customers at Farrant's local - the Prince of Wales in Highgate, London - chuckled over the man they called 'Birdman.' One regular said: 'He used to come in with a parrot on his shoulder. One night he came in with photos of Martine in the nude. We pinched one, and when she next came in, we told her he was selling them at 5p a time. She went through the ceiling.' Martine told how she came to pose for the photo ... 'He convinced me he was an artist and that the photos were art photos. I know better now. He got a lot of girls - including other French au pair girls - to pose nude for him, and he had their pictures plastered over the wall of his Highgate flat.' Martine went on: 'I don't think David's occultism was serious. He was just dabbling in it for the sense of self-importance. He was immature, irresponsible. I see that now'."
MORE DEMON TALK
“As usual, Farrant remains entrenched in his standard distraction technique of falsely identifying me, as if somehow that will take the focus off his past claims in the media, endless contradictions and lies, followed by his latter-day attempts to whitewash what is already recorded.
This won't go away. Farrant has done too much wrong to too many people. He has lied and deceived too many times on public record” says “Demonologist”.
This matter has already ‘gone’ away’, Sean; I resolved in Court back in 1981. It is only you who are trying to revive it.
For what purpose? I don’t honestly know. I can only put it down to some mental defect you apparently have which seems to be caused by some unhealthy obsession you have with myself.
I won my case for libel against the French girl’s remarks. So I nothing left to ‘resolve’ with your personal opinions here. An individual who was not even present in Court, let us remember.
Let us also remember that I have conversations I had with yourself in 1981 on tape where you are discussing this Court case. You are reminding me that I made a big mistake not to have subpoenaed you as a witness when you intended to arrive at Court in a horse-drawn funeral hearse!
What’s the matter Sean? Still upset because I didn’t call you?! It seems like it because all you can revert to is repeating libellous statements which were proved to have been proved untrue in Court.
I could not be bothered to reply to you yesterday – aside from which I had to give a Talk. Somebody asked me at the end about my book review in Fortean Times and the comments which you made about that. I answered the journalist who was present, and you may be pleased to know the whole Talk was filmed. Pity you weren’t there!
David Farrant
"Let us also remember that I have conversations ..." threatens Farrant.
Everyone who has taken an interest in this saga over the years will have read Seán Manchester's accounts in print and online which confirm that Farrant was under investigation and therefore was fed anything to draw him out and reveal his true modus operandi. Seán Manchester was satisfied at the end of his personal contact with Farrant for the purpose of investigating him that the latter is only interested in fabricating sensationalist stories for the press to bring undeserved attention to himself.
In that respect, Seán Manchester came to the same conclusion as Martine de Sacy, despite the outcome of the case brought against the News of the World by Farrant. Martine de Sacy concluded: 'I don't think David's occultism was serious. He was just dabbling in it for the sense of self-importance. He was immature, irresponsible."
As for "conversations on tape," Seán Manchester now has the recordings made by Tony Hill at the beginning of 1970 where Farrant can be heard conspiring to hoax a ghost story with Hill to deceive the press and public into believing he had witnessed a spectre. These tape recordings are something of a sledge hammer to squash a rather small fly who looks half dead anyway.
"I answered the journalist who was present, and you may be pleased to know the whole Talk was filmed. Pity you weren’t there!" exclaims Farrant.
Who cares? So Farrant is still doing what he has been doing for the past forty years (in fact, the ONLY thing he has been doing for the past forty years!), which is providing a free meal ticket to any journalist who will help him disseminate his asinine behaviour and fraudulent claimes. Nothing has changed in that respect. Meanwhile, the world has long since moved on. It is pathetic that Farrant believes for a minute anyone is interested in his sad life pursuing publicity. I'm certainly not and neither is Seán Manchester.
"NOT INTERESTED" ?? . . . THAT'S JUST PURE BULLDUST!
If you are REALLY not interested Sean, then why do you keep bombarding the Internet with sensational newspaper reports - many of them getting on for 40 years old.
You obviously DO care or you simply wouldn't bother!
People are simply not interested in yesterday's news (let alone that of four decades ago!).
People may not care, but on the other hand, you are serving to show people the extent of the morbid obsession you have with myself.
I have tapes of Bonky which, far from drawing me out, confirm his obsession with myself and reveal Bonky trying to involve me in his numerous publicity schemes.
That is no 'threat'. That just remains a material fact!
David Farrant
"Why do you keep bombarding the Internet with sensational newspaper reports - many of them getting on for 40 years old[?]" asks Farrant.
"Bomarding the internet" is what Farrant and a couple of his cronies engage in due to their obsession with Seán Manchester. Just look at Farrant's blog, message board and past forums. They are totally preoccupied with Seán Manchester. His name (or rather the abusive term they replace it with) dominates most of the posts on anything run by or on behalf of Farrant. All of these posts are highly defamatory. Other people's boards have come in for the same bombardment from Farrant and company.
When Farrant has distorted a newspaper report, or chooses to ignore it because it no longer suits his agenda, isn't it just as well that the original in facsimile is made available to those with an enquiring mind?
"You obviously DO care or you simply wouldn't bother!" exclaims Farrant.
I (and others) don't care that Farrant is ensconced in the same pathetic life he was leading forty years ago, ie that of a publicity junkie. We only show interest when he infects the wider media and the public with his poisonous propaganda against Seán Manchester. If he left Seán Manchester out of the equation and just got on with generating mindless publicity for himself nobody would mind, but that is next to impossible because without referring to Seán Manchester all the time there is nothing Farrant has to say that will hold the attention of these amateur interviewers he collaborates with on the internet. A professional journalist will quickly see through Farrant, but there are plenty of tabloid journalists out there still willing to soak up his manufactured sensationalism.
"People may not care, but on the other hand, you are serving to show people the extent of the morbid obsession you have with myself," claims Farrant.
What really is unwholesome and morbid is Farrant's obsession with Seán Manchester. I am merely addressing the malicious falsehood Farrant is spreading on the internet and elsewhere in print about Seán Manchester. If Farrant was to stop doing that there would be no need for me, or anyone one else, to provide rebuttal statements, sometimes with archived evidence, to counter his many vindictive allegations.
"That is no 'threat'. That just remains a material fact!" exclaims Farrant.
What is a "material fact" is that Farrant was planning at the end of 1969 and beginning of 1970 with Tony Hill to deceive the press and the public. This was at a time when Farrant was residing in Hill's coal bunker in Archway Road. (His was one of a handful of similar bunkers in a communal cellar beneath the flats that comprised Priestwood Mansions). Tony Hill secretly recorded their conversations when Farrant appeared from his bunker to have have a cup of tea in Hill's flat. They can be clearly heard conspiring to hoax a ghost story for their local newspaper. They involved Farrant's friend Nava Grunberg whose address was sometimes used to send fraudulent letters to back Farrant's phoney "ghost" sightings. They also used Kenny Frewin's council flat address for the same purpose. Farrant obviously had no idea he was being recorded as he sat in Hill's flat drinking tea and smoking cigarettes while going about his skullduggery.
"Meanwhile, the world has long since moved on. It is pathetic that Farrant believes for a minute anyone is interested in his sad life pursuing publicity. I'm certainly not and neither is Seán Manchester."
Uh...yeah, right.
Let me ask you, Dennis, in posting huge volumes of information (on a satirical blog) which, technically, doesn't even involve you, how exactly do you think you're helping the Bishop's "cause"?
Especially as he's "dusted his sandals" of this whole thing...well, apart from his recent letter to Fortean Times, helpfully tagged along with a link to his books for purchase.
As we've established elsewhere, you don't even speak with his authority.
David,
I am curious though: if you sued News of the World over your erotic exploits, why not sue them over other things?
Like, for instance, your intent to hunt down vampires (as covered in Copper's book, which you referred to as containing "a long chapter on myself and our investigation into the Highgate ‘vampire’ case..."
And, while we're at it, slitting cat's throats for the purpose of sacrifice?
And why not The Sun, too, for the 2006 article about having some kinda giant Halloween orgy?
FOR “DEMONOLOGIST” (And anyone else interested!)
You seem to have a conveniently short memory, “Demonologist” (that is, when it suits you).
You seem to have ‘forgotten’, for example, that it was yourself who was initially friendly with ‘Tony’, and between you, you concocted (or tried to ‘concoct up’) numerous publicity gimmicks.
Again (probably due to convenient memory lapse) you seem to forget that in 1981 you fell out with the person ‘Tony’, and that I have evidence of this on tape. (Also on tape are conversations with myself that relate to your friendship with ‘Tony’ in ‘happier days’!)
For example, on one occasion you were warning me to keep away from Tony, and that if ever I visited Tony’s newspaper stall I should have The Frew’ [a friend of Bonky’s] with me, for necessary protection (as Bonky emphasized). Bonky states that Tony was really ‘out to get me’, and it would be foolhardy of myself to confront him at his stall. He said that if I did visit I should keep ‘The Frew’ in front of me at all times. He also said … “Believe me, he is not trying to do you any favours. In fact he is trying to turn as many people as he can against you.” As Bonky pointed out to me (which is on tape) his (that is Tony’s) policy has always been to ‘divide and conquer’.
On another occasion when Bonky visited, he was gleefully telling me how Tony had once broken his wife’s thumb during a domestic argument. Laughing and clapping, Bonky emphasized that she really deserved it… “Got what she f***ing deserved, if you ask me.”
Bonky also told me how, in reality, Tony was really a dedicated Satanist, and how on one occasion, he had succeeded in ‘conjuring up the devil’.
Strange circle of friends you seem to mix in, “Demonologist”!
David Farrant
FOR EVERYONE
Since writing my last post, I have just listened again to one of the relevant tapes. This might interest you, folks, as let's remember this is Bonky himself talking ...
"He [Tony] must NEVER suspect that there is any collusion between us now. Believe me, if he did, he'd get madder, than he already f***ing well is, I mean. But you can play it any way you want, of course, but I'd advise you to keep well away from him. [Laughter] No, seriously, he can really go over the edge, and I think we've driven 'im to the edge at the moment."
So, come on Bonky! I think you've got some explaining to do here!
David Farrant
FOR EVERYONE
Sorry,having problems with my Google account again, and it's listing me as 'Anonymous'. I'm not really an anonymous person, my name is David Farrant, which is how I signed my last post!
I'll get that problem sorted out tomorrow!
David Farrant.
AGIN, AGAIN and AGAIN!
Well, I sem to have corrected my Google account to use my own name and not to list me as "Anonymous" . . . hopefully!
Just that I prefer to write in my own name, folks, to avoid any confusion!
David Farant
"You seem to have ‘forgotten’, for example, that it was [Seán Manchester] who was initially friendly with ‘Tony’," claims Farrant.
It is a matter of public record that Tony Hill was a part-time employee at Seán Manchester's photographic studio darkroom until Hill ran off with Farrant's wife who had been working as a barmaid in The Woodman pub. This occurred in 1968 and led to a schism between Seán Manchester and Hill as the former knew the latter's wife and clearly felt compromised by what was being asked of him when the couple turned up on his doorstep. That schism lasted quite a number of years. This is what Seán Manchester himself has to say about the matter in "Aftermath of the Highgate Vampire" (2007):
"He stood alongside an attractive dark-haired woman, not his wife, who held a baby, not his baby, in her arms. They wanted the use of my flat for a brief period before going off together to goodness knows where. Anthony referred to the cuckold as 'Allan,' which, although not his real name, was the name by which he was generally known. I vaguely recognised the female, Mary, as a barmaid from The Woodman pub on Archway Road where I had played tenor saxophone in a jazz group on a couple of occasions. Now she and Anthony were asking me to collude in their 'elopement.' Put on the spot, I made a split-second decision to resolve this dilemma by declining.
"Nothing would ever be quite the same again. Anthony failed to return to work after the affair - something he described as the happiest six months of his life - and instead opted to take jobs other than darkroom work, including another milk round before becoming a newspaper vendor. Mary returned to 'Allan,' but left to live with her parents two days after giving birth to a second son in August 1969. She eventually filed for a divorce. Anthony returned to his wife at their Highgate flat in London. The bizarre twist to this episode is that 'Allan,' now having been made homeless following his eviction from a nearby flat, sought refuge in Anthony’s coal cellar. Partial to alcohol, 'Allan' would later be arrested and held on remand for shenanigans not entirely unrelated to his drinking in the following year. A handful of months before the arrest, he wrote to his local newspaper, at the behest of Anthony, to declare that he had seen a ghostly figure some nights as he 'walked home past the gates of Highgate Cemetery.' Thus he became one of a number of people I interviewed, and was briefly interviewed in the press and on a television programme along with various other witnesses. I immediately noticed an obvious flaw, however, in his overture to the press. It is physically impossible to 'walk home' from any of the pubs he frequented in Highgate Village and pass by the cemetery gates in Swains Lane. A map of the area confirms his cellar lodgings in Archway Road to be located in a completely opposite direction. But, then, 'Allan' was not the least bit serious when he wrote his letter of 6 February 1970 to the Hampstead & Highgate Express. It was fraudulent. The exercise was nothing other than an attention-seeking prank. To that end it succeeded. These facts would be confirmed by the contents of the envelope pressed into my hand by Anthony as we bade farewell on the day of Diana’s funeral. The envelope contained a cassette tape whereon the voices of Anthony and 'Allan' could be heard conspiring to concoct a counterfeit ghost story for local newspapers."
"If ever I visited Tony’s newspaper stall I should have The Frew’ (a friend of Bonky’s) with me, for necessary protection (as Bonky emphasized)," claims Farrant.
"The Frew" is an obvious reference to Farrant's ex-convict "minder" Kenny Frewin who was not known to Seán Manchester save on the occasion he made physical threats at Farrant's instigation during a publicity stunt with press phtographers and some members of the public present at Highgate Wood where David Farrant and John Pope colluded to demonstrate their magical powers. Frewin, an NF supporter despite his dalliance with a black woman, acted as Farrant's "minder" throughout most of the 1970s and into the 1980s. Arrested on a number of occasions for violent acts, he was generally regarded by those who knew him as a mindless thug. Farrant was very close to "The Frew" and even sometimes used him in his fraudulent stories in the press; on one occasion giving him the pseudonym "Kenny French." In early 1970, Farrant used Kenny Frewin's council flat address for phoney letters to the Hampstead & Highgate Express.
"I have just listened again to one of the relevant tapes," says Farrant.
So have one or two others. They are cut and spliced from one sentence to the next. The extremely poor quality almost covers the obvious doctoring going on, but not quite. These recordings are worthless and an embarrassment to anyone trying to pass them off as genuine.
"I think you've got some explaining to do here!" exclaims Farrant.
When is Farrant going to embark upon just one explanation of the myriad put before him? Some time never, I suspect!
"I'm not really an anonymous person, my name is David Farrant, which is how I signed my last post!" exclaims Farrant again.
It must be Farrant's ultimate nightmare to not see his name in print (or online) and be replaced with "Anonymous." Ironically, he is an anonymous character who wants to be a "somebody." The trouble is, he can only do this by riding on the coat-tails of the definitely not anonymous Seán Manchester.
"Just that I prefer to write in my own name, folks," confirms Farrant.
Don't we know it!
"Meanwhile, the world has long since moved on. It is pathetic that Farrant believes for a minute anyone is interested in his sad life pursuing publicity. I'm certainly not and neither is Seán Manchester." (Demonologist quoted by Hogg))
"Uh...yeah, right. Let me ask you, [Demonologist], in posting huge volumes of information (on a satirical blog) which, technically, doesn't even involve you, how exactly do you think you're helping the Bishop's 'cause'?" asks Anthony Hogg.
I see no "satire" on this blog. It is a platform to extend Farrant's hate campaign while publishing puerile schoolboy smut under the guise of "satire" (which it is not). Try taking a look at what the word means. It has nothing to do with this blog.
The "huge volumes of information" expose Farrant's pernicious propaganda as distortion and fabrication. What I have shared can be checked and resourced to archive material on public record. Elsewhere I name people who I hope can be found so that they can corroborate everything I attribute to or about them.
As a longstanding member of the Vampire Research Society, this business involves me a great deal more than some youngster in Australia, not even born at the time of when all this exploded in the public eye.
Technically or otherwise, how does any of this "involve" Anthony Hogg?
Someone who is certainly not "helping the Bishop's cause" is Hogg who arrogates unto himself a false authority on matters about which he is woefully ignorant while disseminating judgements that amount to little more than the baying of the super-geek.
Dennis Crawford aka Demonologist aka Vampirologist aka Gothic aka The Overseer aka who-knows-what-else, I know you enjoy saying my name, but why do you have trouble revealing yours?
I know it's provided you with a useful cover to snipe people that your boss, Manchester, feels best ignored. Well, not counting Aftermath of the Highgate Vampire (2007) and his recent letter/advertisement to Fortean Times.
But we do have something in common: neither of us speak with an authority.
As Manchester himself said:
"Nobody is authorised to speak in my stead. This does not preclude friends and associates coming to my defence, which choice is theirs to make and not mine to deny."
In other words, people of your ilk are "tolerated", but speak with no official authority.
I hope that makes you sleep easy at night.
If you can't see the satire of this blog, then how do you explain items like "Interview with the Highgate Vampire", "Armi Of Socks Prefer Cat's Blog" and "Green: 'I will sacrifice cat on BBC1'"?
I admit that most of the invective is leveled against Manchester. That reflects its authors personal bias. Although, I'll say you're doing nothing to alleviate it, yourself.
If this blog is mounting a hate campaign against Manchester, then it's only matched by your cut-n-paste efforts against Farrant.
Here's what Wikipedia (a site that Manchester likes to plagiarise) defines as satire: "In satire, human or individual vices, follies, abuses, or shortcomings are held up to censure by means of ridicule, derision, burlesque, irony, or other methods, ideally with the intent to bring about improvement."
Why you only referred to yourself as "a longstanding member" of the VRS, and not disclosed that you're actually its International Secretary, is beyond me.
Also, who cares if I was born after the events of Highgate? That is a deeply flawed argument, especially considering that you refuse to even divulge your own involvement in it.
"If you can't see the satire of this blog, then how do you explain items like ... etc," Hogg blusters.
How come Hogg didn't see the satire in the poem commenting on a 64-year-old man's vanity with Farrant's hair progressively darkening as time goes by? Because he didn't see it, and even said so.
Here's a reminder for those who missed the lines:
Why, of why, does Farrant dye
His hair when there is no need
For a man in his sixties to try
To cover the grey and deceive?
We can all see the whiskers white
And undyed where sideburns greet
Strangely coloured hair and light
Grey bristles evidentially meet
Startled eyes expecting the chops
To match the darkened mop on top.
Why dye? 'Cause it's in the eye
Of the beholder that this is a lie.
[Anon.]
Dennis,
I didn't see your dandy little poem, because it seems to have been deleted. All that was left, was your username change, i.e., "Dye, Farrant, Dye! But why lie about the dye?"
Do you also realise that the greying hair, sideburns and so forth, could be a representation of your Prez, as well?
Now that's funny!
FOR OVERSEER
What is even funnier, Overseer, is that the joke's on him because I don't dye my hair. No need to because it hasn't turned grey yet!
Bonky's hair on the other hand turned grey as far back as 1989/90.
There is a colour picture of him on the front cover of "Midweek Magazine" [dated May 17th 1990] clearly showing Bonky holding a large cross with his hair dyed blond in a vain attempt to disguise the grey!
It is absolutely hilarious and shoes just another example on how Bonky attempts to transfer his own characteristics onto others.
When I get my fax sorted out, I'll get a copy over to you.
Nowadays, Bonky's hair is entirely grey of course (well white really) as he has long since given up with the dyes and peroxide trying to disguise it!
Add to this Bonky is now almost completely bald on top, so there would be little point really!
David
Hogg and Farrant have become proper little playmates, haven't they?
Seán Manchester has not dyed his hair and, unlike Farrant, allowed it to change naturally to what it is now. Farrant is quite correct to say that it is grey/white.
I could not decide whether Farrant's hair was darkened by dirt or dye, but I'll be generous and plump for dye.
When you look at pictures of Farrant in the 1970s and 1980s, his hair was naturally light. By the 1990s it started turning an orange colour. He sat in a television audience earlier this century and his hair was dark orange! Then it started to turn brown, indicating a change of product and dye colour.
How does a man about to celebrate his 64th birthday end up with hair much darker than it was thirty years ago?
That's the question Farrant cannot answer.
The "Demonologist" and Seán Manchester are proper little playmates, too. How do you know Seán has never dyed his hair. Have you been with him 24/7 for 40 years? Do you accompany him to the lavatory? You are not Seán Manchester and he has authorized no-one to speak in his stead, where do you get this information?
Dennis,
You're now resorting to attacking people based on...their hair colour?
Are you really that petty?
I thought the International Secretary of the VRS would conduct himself with a little more prestige.
It is not an attack on someone BECAUSE he dyed his hair and has done so for many years.
It is a critical observation made only because he repeatedly LIES about the fact that he dyes his hair, as he LIES about most everything else.
Ha ha ha ha ha! Deme, aka, Dennis, aka Bish. Bonkers said ....
" Demonologist said...
It is not an attack on someone BECAUSE he dyed his hair and has done so for many years.
It is a critical observation made only because he repeatedly LIES about the fact that he dyes his hair, as he LIES about most everything else. "
Do you even have an inkling of how INSANE you appear to the real world? You know, people that actually have lives? Why am I here? Simply because you give me so much amusement! Jesus Christ, what a PUTZ! You keep swinging away Moron, because we do enjoy it!
PS By the way, still signing under my own name. Matter of fact Farrant signs under his name, and you? Still a Putz, Moron and a COWARD. Just saying ...
SHORT MEMORY?
My hair has never changed colour, Sean (sorry, "Demonologist") except when YOU doctored pictures of myself sitting in a TV studio. That's also the time when you added a pair of 'fangs' to my genuine photogrphs and put these up onn the Internet. Remember?
David Farrant
Ah, of course.
Manchester's, ahem, paintings ("Dæmon" and "Adversary") on Metaphysical Meanderings. Or, as he puts it, "Transcendental Reflections in Portraiture."
Also known as Photoshop.
I'm glad this has slightly moved on from the Hairdyegate Feud.
and your hair is a dark sandy blond and you look like you are at tops 24.
now it all makes sense.
and this is what a 24 yr old kid does with his time ?
isn't it also about the fact that he is just as old give or take a year or two as BSM ? and certainly when you are in your 60's you're not a spring chicken so how can he make mockery of BSM's age ?
dying your hair never fools anyone
...And Hairdyegate is back on!
Carol, I've noticed your carol-rants blog (which you also follow) is empty.
Are you going to be writing any entries sometime soon?
Presenting...the VRS's Public Relations Officer!
FOR OVERSEER (and maybe Carol as well!)
You spoke too soon Overseer (sorry Anthony now!) Carol's back!
Listen, Sweetheart (Carol, I mean!), I do NOT dye my hair and never have done.
I really don't understand this spurious arguement! What if I did dye my hair? I don't, but what if I wanted to? Who really cares! Well, I guess I do having said that as I would never put such chenical muck on my hair.
Us 'witches' have the gift of agelessness, anyway, so there'd be no need to. Unlike the bonky one whose hair tured a dreadful colour of 'peroxided orange' not so far back (but that was when he had hair - it doesn't apply now!).
Carol, you really are vainly trying to defend absolute nonsense.
I invite any lady who doesn't believe this (though I don't think this would apply to you, Carol) to visit me and see for themselves.
Love it; even give them a clipping so that they could get it forensically examined if they wanted!
Carol, my angel . . . get real (as they say in the States!)
David (Farrant)
Wow Carol! That was really disrespectful to Don. As you are in the States too, I'd shut my yap. Don deserves respect. What have you ever done to serve your country other than stick up for the "Bishop' when he runs away?
Carol what is a "fat as"? That makes no sense. Of course you are learning disabled so we should cut you some slack.
Go look in the mirror and say 'duh' at yourself - the BSM fangirl.
What's BSM mean anyway? Bowel Sean Movement?
ASS right;
interested in:--only AH/A/O/and his other pretenders to the throne .........and I like to play with F___ a little when I'm in the mood ;
this is just a little 'toy' time for me;
"learning disabled" is a term for people who can't properly defend themselves with artistic brilliant rhetoric, like other dumb f____ers
here;
you others are too easily done--its not challenging enough for me and why don't you let the fat former cigar totin'"cop" take me on--stay out of it---you don't have the history--and i'll mow your F______chasing witch-bitch ass down. That's right.
I already corrected your lame stance on Scripture. You get an "F" and need to repeat the course.
dave, dave, dave, YOU DYE YOUR HAIR AND IT MIMICS YOUR OTHER "SELF-DENIALS"
DAVE.....YOU DYE YOUR HAIR; YOUR TALKIN TO A 30 YR VET HERE...OF COSMOTOLOGY--A JOB I TRULY HATED AND STILL DETEST.
JUST LIKE A GOOD QUALITY DOCTOR CAN READ THE SYMPTOMS OF A SICKNESS AND KNOW BEFORE HIS LAB TESTS EVEN COME BACK.....I'VE BEEN IN THE BIZ TO LONG AND KNOW A DYED HEAD WHEN IT PRESENTS ITSELF.
FOR CAROL
Grow up! And stop swearing. There is no need for it.
I don't know what your profession is Sweetheart,(unles you can believe Bonky that you used to be a prison officer) but you can't be very good at it when you can't even tell natural hair from the dyed or peroxided variety that Bonky used to use.
And Carol, if you must address me by me by my first name, baby, please get it right. Its David.
Any shortened version is a little too familiar (and this goes for you too Anthony!) and we ain't exactly on such terms yet!
What's the colour of your hair, incidentally, Carol?
David Farrant
Carol, learn to use punctuation correctly before making lame threats, particularly in the direction of an ex-cop who still has friends on the force. You sound tense so why don't you blow some bum and get your crack fix for tonight. I'm sure you'll feel better.
"Isn't it also about the fact that [Farrant] is just as old give or take a year or two as Bishop Seán Manchester? and certainly when you are in your 60's you're not a spring chicken so how can he make mockery of Bishop Seán Manchester's age? Dying your hair never fools anyone." - Carol (September 21, 2009 9:36 PM)
Bishop Seán Manchester recently turned 65 and Farrant will very soon be 64. That is how close their ages are. Yet Farrant has repeatedly gone on about the age of the man he attempts to ridicule and defame every day of his life.
Farrant has a problem with age, which is why he dyes his hair and tries to project an image which only exists in his own mind.
To the rest of us, Farrant looks significantly older than his years; not helped by an anorexic appearance and a lifetime of boozing, chain-smoking cigarettes and degenerate behaviour.
Most I hear from who see recent pictures of Farrant certainly hold the view that he is about as unhealthy and unwholesome as any human being can get.
This conversation about age and hair dye is getting incredibly stupid.
But, Dennis, if you're going to attack Dave (heh heh) on his looks...then how about you post a picture up of yourself?
And Carol, it's interesting to see that you invoke Scripture, while having a potty mouth and claiming that you're "toying" with David under the presumption that you're intellectually superior to him.
Very strange tactics of debate there.
Oh, and David, is it true that Manchester has invited you over for tea? If so, why haven't you taken him up on the offer?
"Oh, and David, is it true that Manchester has invited you over for tea? If so, why haven't you taken him up on the offer?" Anthony Hogg asks Farrant.
Farrant can hardly deny it since it is public knowledge that Seán Manchester invited him to a private meeting for tea and scones. It was debated some time back on the Fortean Times' forum. In fact, I recollect one of the Fortean Times' moderators enquiring whether the offer had an expiry date. I seem to also recall Farrant insisting that he was accompanied by a phalanx of newspaper reporters which he knew to be outside the terms of the invitation. He had no intention of accepting, of course, and later declared that he would be insane to do so.
So, please, no denials from Farrant because it is true.
David: if the offer of a meeting with tea and scones is still valid, then you should do it!
Even if nothing substantive was discussed, it would be nice for you two lads to see one another again.
Not to be morbid, but as you're both getting on in age, this might be the last time you meet!
Far from denying it, Sean, I actually posted up the newspaper report that related to this invitation.
This was not an invitation 'for tea' at all, it was an invatation to attend a 'full exorcism' to exorcise me of my 'demonic powers'. And it was made directly to a local newspaper (The Haringey Independent in 1998) and one of their reporters, Bob Campion, was invited to attend.
"TEA WITH THE DEVIL!"
In reality. this was just another example of Bonky using my name to attract publicity to himself.
Bob Campion declined the invitation: I was quoted as saying the only person who needed exorcising was himself [as in 'Bonky'] and that I 'had better
things to do'.
So it didn't happen quite the way "Demonologist" is now trying to make out.
Whatever, 'having tea with the devil' - its still quite funny!
DAVID FARRANT
Well, David, as the offer still stands, and as it's declared to be a private affair...why not go for it?
If it is publicised, then that'll only validate your claims of him seeking publicity, wouldn't it?
What've you got to lose?
Re: tea for two, I agree they should go for it!
Also, I would like to know if the scones will be home-made or store-bought.
NB: It might be a good idea to have a policeman present to discourage "accidental" injury, assault or claims of liability from either gentleman.
I also think they event should be filmed.
It could get cinematic release: My Dinner with Bonky.
Sorry, couldn't resist.
But seriously, go for it, David! Just make sure that Dennis sits out of it!
It's time to get this bloody thing sorted out, once and for all.
Carol...Carol...Steadfast Carol?
The alcoholic drug addict who used to post on one of Manchester's many vanity forums?
I guess you really do have the dregs of society on your side Manchester.
As for insulting Don, and as a fellow American, do you even know who he is?
That's pretty cheap and disgusting when you take his service record into consideration.
As for being a former cop, you wonder why?
Yeah, because retirement so clearly isn't an option.
Go ahead and do a little background research on him.
Perhaps you'll be gracious enough to apologise or perhaps, like your idol Manchester, you'll carry on talking smack.
Such a disgusting human being.
Thanks Anthony (and you I suppose as well Cat!) but are you seriously expecting that I would waste my time to visit that bungalow just to eat some Tesco's pre-packed scones?
I might consider it if the 'bonky one' would agree to have Dennis, "Demonologist" and "vampirologist" all there at the same time.
Now THAT really would be interesting!
Impossible, of course, but nevertheless interesting1
FOR CAROL,
Well don't just run away again, Swetheart. We are all missing you!
David (Farrant)
David, what if the Bishop promises to serve home baked scones?
Post a Comment