Well, I never imagined I'd be paying a compliment to that insufferable know-it-all, Cousin Hoggy, but here I go. The ambitious young lad from down under has managed to get Bishop Bonkers himself to agree to take tea with arch-rival David Farrant.Of course, certain obstacles must be overcome. The Bishop insists they meet alone at his seaside retreat. Farrant insists that all the bishop's various internet aliases be present. Neither wants to be the first to pick up the telephone and initiate a chat.
One reason may be that these two old war-horses have been through this drill before. Various "peace treaties" have been signed and broken. Another reason may be simple inertia: more than 20 years have elapsed since they last met face to face. "The entertainment world is full of silly artistic rivalries", ex-Beatle Paul McCartney once cautioned, "In my case, I wish we'd settled our differences and gotten together one last time. Of course, now it's too late."
85 comments:
We'll have to see what happens Cat.
But we're getting there! For the very first time we have a confession from Bonky that "Dennis Crawford", "vampirologist" and "Demomologist" are all the same person interchanging alias's.
Well, I've already told verybody that. But there's still one step! That is for Bonky to confess that he alone is the sole voice behind all these alias's.
So, as 'Dennis Crawford'is using Bonk's computer day in and day out (sometimes in te early hours) I'd like to see how the 'bonky one' can explain that!?
David Farrant
David,
I've posted a comment on the Bishop's blog, asking him specifically about the usernames he employs.
And, more directly, I've asked him whether or not he uses "Demonologist" or "Vampirologist".
If he says he doesn't, then there's not much else to be done.
You wanted to know if Dennis was real (as you presume that he and the Bishop are one), and the invite has included Dennis, himself in it, so you'll get to meet him yourself.
David, isn't it "possible" that 'Dennis Crawford" is Brother Keith...Tony Hill...Mrs. Bonkers, etc. ?
Someone who knows the bishop quite well could give the appearance of being him online. For example, the The Yorkshire Pudding was once very actively posting in your behalf.
Just saying, perhaps it's possible he uses aliases, but not all of them could be himself?
That's a fair point, Cat
All I can say is, there is absolutely no doubt that the person calling themselves 'Dennis Crawford' is really the person really known here = and widely elsewhere - as 'Bonky.
There is absolutely no doubt about it.
'Dennis Crawford' is really the 'Bonky one' - or rather the 'Bonky one' is writing all this stuff himself under the name of 'Dennis Crawford' without the latter even being aware of it, should he really exist - unless by 'stolen name', at least
Why else do you think I inisted that the person (named as 'Dennis Crawfod} should be present? Its because the stuff he has supposedly written, has not been written by himself, but by none other than 'Bonky' himself.
THAT is really the whole point! 'Dennis Crawford' is just another psuedo name that the Bonky one writes under.
Why? Because the 'Bonky one' just doesn't possess the courage to put his own posts under his rel name!
Which really is 'Bonky', of course!
David Farrant
David,
The Bishop agreed to ask Dennis to come along too.
Thus, if Dennis does rock up, it renders the whole alias thing null and void, as the gist of it is, that you don't think Dennis is a real person.
I don't deny that Manchester writes under different names (he admitted this in my questions to him), but the point is, that this feud needs a friggin' rest.
As of this writing, I'm still awaiting the Bishop's reply on which usernames he uses.
Carol, of course, has put her "two cents" (not that she possesses much sense in general), so we'll have to wait and see.
Keep in mind, that your stipulation for this proposed meeting was that Dennis be present.
That's the main thing.
WAKE UP ANTHONY!
Its not the 'same thing' at all, Anthony.
Can't you just grt it thtough your 'undersised head', they ('Dennis' and 'Bonky') are really one and same prson?
When you begn to understand that, you might just begin to understand what I am saying.
But I guess these things take time to register!
But if you can really understand that, there would really be no need for further arguement, and you would have got the whole point.
If only!!
David (Farrant)
David,
Stop being an utter twat.
You know very well why I refer to Dennis as a separate entity.
I've repeatedly explained my stance on public evidence, to you.
You can flap your arms scream it till you're blue in the face, but without publicly reproducible evidence, I can't merely state that Dennis is Manchester.
You would know this very well from that letter you showed me, allegedly from the VRS, via e-mail.
As I pointed out in my previous comment:
"The Bishop agreed to ask Dennis to come along too.
"Thus, if Dennis does rock up, it renders the whole alias thing null and void, as the gist of it is, that you don't think Dennis is a real person."
Therefore, you will obtain a degree of vindication, won't you?
All it takes, is for you to actually turn up there.
Enough with the petty excuses and distractions.
The rest of this is now in Manchester's court.
I've asked him what other usernames he uses, and, as of this writing, I'm still awaiting a reply.
He quite obviously got the message, as I've been showing on my blog, so we'll have to wait until he actually responds.
He can't hide from it that easily, now.
Update:
The Bishop said that he doesn't use the usernames, Vampirologist/Demonologist.
However, as per your original stipulation, there's been no discussion of not having Dennis there. This is still on the table.
It's what you wanted, David.
If you still continue to demand he reveal them as his usernames, then I'll say you're using sidestepping tactics yourself.
The stipulation was, that you want Dennis to be there, too (as you think he's not a real person. At least, his online self).
So, as I said, if he does turn up, then you'll have some explaining to do, yourself.
UPDATE 2:
The Bishop now says he won't accept anymore comments on the meet...apart from yourself.
So, by all means, discuss the matter with the Bishop on his "Public Request for Private Meeting" blog entry.
I go on vacation and look what happens!
Well, David, the ball is in your court! Take him up on the offer and settle this craziness once and for all.
Now Bonky insists that David post on his forum? Honestly, these two behave like a pair of spoiled CHILDREN.
I move David should post. This is almost as big as a Beatles reunion.
Heck, I would have sent Amber to cover the event but The Office is in shambles. Amber is in tears because Ms. Furbish yelled at her and the rest are in some catatonic state.
David, do post and you and the Bish lay down arms for at least tea time. Dump the idea of a media event, but think of a neutral party to cover the event for BOTH parties involved - say like the Fortean Times. FT is well respected and neutral. Good press for both - Bishop and David. Proof for the rest of us it happened and an unbiased view.
i say david shouldnt post.
its down to manchester to post on davids blog otherwise he'll forever lord it up that david contacted him.
i also think it should be held in highgate and not in bournemouth.
grow some balls david and take control!!
Craig, these two old warriors don't trust each other at all. Each one fears that by him initiating contact, it will be exploited as a sign of weakness.
That's why I think the arrangements for a meeting should be handled by designated "seconds", such as Gareth Medway and Dennis Crawford.
yeah but as nobody has ever seen dennis crawfor...hang on. i exposed the real so called dennis crawford a while back.
the person who fills in for crawford better pass a serious resemblance to the bloke in the 1st edition of thv PLUS he has to bring along further fotografic proof that it really is him otherwise manchaser will bring along any old fart.
funny though how mannie is willing to do this considering he doesnt read the boards and has moved on.
david, meet him at the woodsman pub where u met all those years ago.
only fair.
don't go to his video camera and secret audio laden grotto.
that would be the stupidest move since trusting fearnley.
God's teeth! They need to stop acting like babies and pick up the phone and arrange to meet each other in a private location. No press, no fans, and nobody'd be the wiser. Why can't they do that?
experience.
and predictable behaviour.
manchester needs to do more work the schizoid nutter.
too many fake names and bullshit "i dont read the boards".
mandy has to do the work on this one.
besides as hes a good old christian bishop, it shouldnt be such an alien thing for him to do.
FOR CAT, OVERSEER, LONE STRANGER, (MAYBE CAROL!), CRAIG, BONKY AKA "DEMONOLOGIST", AND EVERYONE ELSE
let me do this all in one post to save time.
Please understand, good people, I have never said that "Dennis Crawford" does not exist.
A few years ago, a rather immature student (aged around 19 to 20) called in person at my address to say 'Sean and Di sent him'. I asked him why he'd been writing vindictive lies and untruthes about me (on another Blog). He said that he hadn't been told anything about that!
What I am saying - and have said before - is that it is Bonky himself who has been writing all the material about myself which he attributes to Dennis Crawford.
So let that person be present because I would recognise him again.
'Fraid I agree with Craig here: as bonky initially made this invitation/s, he should contact myself on my Blog. His reply will not be censored or edited in any way, but it would have to come from himself directly. THEN any arrangements could be made.
So, over to you, Sean . . .
David Farrant
Blah blah blah, who cares who Dennis Crawford is? Nobody really. Keep fussing, and at this rate, you'll never meet. At least give the bishop the option of contacting you via private email.
Fair enough Cat. It is perhaps obvious to all that he will never post on my Blog.
Then let Bonky email me provately. I have 4 email addresses, but he knows two of them.
So I put it to him here:
FOR BONKY
Re your suggested invation/s for 'tea', I suggest this matter should be discussed in private. Please therefore email me.
David Farrant
OK Cat?
David
So, even though we may not know which one will initiate email contact (and that info can be kept entirely private between the two parties) you have both agreed to the "concept" of private email contact.
A good compromise and good first step!
Oh, it's something alright!
Your original stipulation, David, was that Dennis be present. Then you wanted him to admit that "Dennis" aka "Vampirologist" aka "Demonologist" was actually him.
Now you want him to contact you via your blog or e-mail.
I think you're deliberately putting up roadblocks, here. I've contacted him on his blog, several times, on your behalf.
He said that it wasn't to be commented on further...apart from you.
That's now two invites he's sent.
Just comment on his blog (make sure you save your comment, though) and let's get this tea party under way.
Sigh...Hoggy...Stop acting like a bloody prosecutor. Always trying to catch one of them contradicting them selves. It doesn't matter. This isn't a court of law. Bonky and David can negotiate any terms they like. The main thing is that they get together, some how, some way....
gotta agree with JBC there mate.
looking at old posts across the net, it wouldnt be the first time david refused to go down to bournemouth and i can't say i blame him.
i still say the woodsman as thats where they first met unless u believe manchesters account in which case they should meet at....HIGHGATE CEMETERY!!!!
(...and have a duel with stakes)
Yes, I regret being somewhat ill tempered with Anthony. But in my view, a process of negotiation is a about give and take, rather than winner take all. I don't blame David for declining the Bishop's first offer.
And they have a much better chance of hooking up privately (i.e. email), rather than on public forums like their blogs, where they will feel compelled to "put on a show" and misbehave.
I have invited him publicly here to email me privately. There's not a lot more I can do.
Except to say, send it to the other email you have, Sean. If you send it to my main Website it will be read by other people.
Or you can phone me, of course, on the number you have.
Well Sean?
Over to you,
David (Farrant)
some years ago i invited a similar scenario to clear the air about lady armytage robin hoods grave etc by one of her chief fans i refer to dh.
it backfired on me as this guy was in leugue with manchester all the time--you have seen the nasty letter manchester posted on fortean times about me and the meeting that dh had told him about --a pack of lies --i did it with good will and genuine desire to end all the dickipoggy.
dont trust these guys david and dont go to bournemouth into his territory, you know the meeting will be twisted out of the truth, you need to be somewhere neutral with trusted witnesses--i only had dh's witness and the whole thing was a trick.i doubt there is any genuine desire to kiss and make up
barbara
JBC,
As you know, I'm as keen for this to go ahead as you are.
But, I'm seeing the efforts being stymied by adding stipulation after stipulation after the initial invite.
David has now publicly invited Manchester (via this blog, which we can't even sure Manchester even reads, regardless of "Demonologist"'s identity) to contact him.
So, I see where this is going, put it that way.
This thing isn't a question of winning or losing, but it needs to stop being treated as a game of back and forth.
I can totally understand why the two have apprehensions about making the "first move".
But what's happening is that the agreement keeps being renegotiated in David's favour, after his initial request being granted. All he has to do is comment on Manchester's blog (I've also told him to save said comment, as they have a tendency to be deleted).
Now, back to the tea party...
Barbara,
I, too, can understand your apprehensions. But what's the option? The perpetual online bickering?
This is a major step towards reconciliation and I commend both David and Manchester, for expressing interest.
My only concern is that, with their powers combined, what dastardly deeds they could concoct! ;)
Oh I disagree.
"Travel to MY house, post on MY blog, contact ME first" offered Manchester.
I don't see why these terms must be set in stone and unchangeable. Why should David not be allowed to renegotiate terms more favourable to himself?
(Altho I do agree that the silliness about "who Dennis Crawford is" should be dropped, as it is a side issue.)
"Back and forth" is part of normal negotiation. Let them work out how the initial contact is made.
I have to agree with JBC as well.
The terms and conditions have been thrashed out many times in the past or at least put on the table in one form or another on many a forum.
AH - I don't think you're being completely neutral on this, perhaps calling David an 'utter twat' is losing that central sensitivity.
It's not going to put you in any position to mediate.
David, do what you feel is right, after all, you've had to live through this for 40 years whilst the rest of us are casual observers.
Joe
I agree with JBC, too.
Think of it like a Godfather movie, AH. The heads of two "Families" meet at a neutral location. T. Soprano doesn't meet with the Lupertazzis on Lupertazzis' turf and vise versa.
Under Bonky's terms, he is holding all the cards and David must compromise. That's not fair. Bonky will have to compromise too, for the meeting to be fair and equal for both parties. That's how diplomacy works.
well i think the on line bickering has become an addiction---what would anyone do without the two ronnies---but knowing manchester he is trying to wrong foot david---it will be the mad hatters tea party---to see that both camps have a genuine wish for mutual understanding, forgiveness and an end to the dickipoggy very strict conditions would have to be drawn up, very clear aims and objectives, a neutral meeting place and entirely trustworthy witnesses who record every word-------- believe me when i met dh to negotiate peace terms i soon found out i had been double crossed and it was a manchester plot to discredit me which i walked into with every good intention---david is right to demand conditions--why should manchester makes all the rules and be on his own territory with goodness knowshat bugs in his biretta and bungalow
barbara
What's been forgotten here, is that Manchester sent the invite first. That is, invited him over.
David agreed...so long as Dennis was present. Manchester said he'd ask Dennis along.
Then, David said he wanted Manchester to admit that he was actually "Demonologist".
Now, he wants Manchester to contact him, as well.
And you guys are saying that Manchester's holding all the cards?
Come on.
That said, there's no issue with meeting on a neutral ground. Or, the "Godfather" situation, as JBC puts it.
No quarrel there.
However, that means that a private place would need to be decided. I'm not exactly hugely familiar with the local Highgate area.
So, that leaves another option...
David, have you considered inviting Manchester over to your joint?
Barbara,
Don't tell me we have to arrange a tea party for you as well! :P
DENNIS THE MENACE?
The last known sighting of the real Dennis Crawford - a 1960s ghost hunter - was on 23rd January 1971 (coincidentally David Farrant's birthday), when he joined Bonky, Jacqueline 'Lusia' Cooper, Tony Hill, the Rev. Dennis Pauley, and an unidentified man, to do a photoshoot, sorry an exorcism, for the 'News of the World', at St. Clement's Church, Holloway (since deconsecrated and turned into a block of flats). He is visible in a picture of the occasion published by the 'North London Press' on the following Friday. All subsequent 'Dennis Crawfords', such as the student who appeared on David Farrant's doorstep, are inferior imitations.
Gareth J. Medway
FOR ANTHONY (AND ANYONE ELSE)
You said:
"David, have you ever considered inviting Manchester over to your joint?"
Anthony, I have invited Bonky to 1) To post on my blog; 2) or e-mail me privately; or 3) telephone me on my private number.
He made the invitation, so what more can I really do?
But, it's a good suggestion Anthony - that's if he would accept it - that Bonky could come to my private address for the proposed meeting. If, indeed, he could find the courage to do so!
David Farrant
The terms of engagement (no offense AH) are becoming as dizzying as watching Abbot and Costello's "Who's on First" in fast forward.
Let's dump the tea idea all together. I opt for a game of football - David vs. Bonky. I don't mean that soccer stuff the rest of the world plays. I mean North American football, where you dress in Kevlar like modern gladiators and see who can get the most goals without winding up in the hospital.
Just brainstorming.....
How about a 2 party conference call service, such as BT provides? They assign you an 800 number to dial in to. Only the two parties that know the special conference number can be on the call. They are not calling each other ("HE called ME!"), they are only calling a conference line. That way, neither one is calling the other first.
TEA FOR FREE?
I should perhaps add, that I do find it extraordinary that, in all the 42 years I have known Bonky, he is only now offering to serve me (with what appears to be) a free cup of tea - oh, and we musn't forget the scones, of course. Whenever I used to meet with him and Tony Hill in various cafes around Archway, he always stood behind Tony and myself in the queue, with his hands firmly in his trouser pockets, so that we would be obliged to pay for everything. And, that was in the days when tea only cost fourpence a cup - in old money, let us remember!
David Farrant
I'm not gunna hold my breath waiting for this reunion. Even if you two do decide to pick up the phone and chat, we'd never know about it since there'd be a mutual gag order imposed. In fact, you two could be having a high old time right now on the phone, and how would we know? We wouldn't, I tell ye....
Anyway.......on another subject, I have a question for David about the Old Days: did you know Spike Milligan, or was it only Sean that knew him?
Thanks for that Cat. I see no reason to keep any potebtial meeting with Bonky private. He claims that I am trying to involve the Press. That's just nonsense. I just want any such meeting witnessed - with good reason!
But that aside, you asked me about the late Spike Milligen:
He used to live directly over the road from me in the mid 1950's in shepherds Hill, in Higgate. He came in for coffee on many occasions and, in 1955 - or thereabouts - he gave me a huge cage of white mice. He said he just didn;t have time to look after them due to his work (I believe he was still doing the radio "Goon Show" at that time which was very popular then0. He knew I already had a house full of animals, which is probably the reason he gave them to me.
SO, no, I knew him long before Bonky ever claimed to have done! Indeed, that's probably where Bonky copied it from!.
David Farrant
Lone Stranger,
It might seem dizzying to you, but I have tried to keep the progress of this nice and simple, hence the "he said/she said" statements.
That can be verified just by reading through the comments.
By the way, I'm looking forward to Amber's coverage of the CDFC newsletters on your blog.
JBC,
Your idea about a conference call is...surprisingly good. Of course, the problem is, is in getting these two buggers to pick up the bloody phone!
Gareth,
Firstly, you need your own Google Account. Second, let's scrap the Dennis stuff for now, shall we? It'll only bog things down.
David,
I know you have invited the Bishop to post on your blog and to contact you via e-mail. Of course, this undermines two things: 1) he invited you to post on his blog first, even to the point of barring others from commenting on it 2) you're operating under the presumption that he actually reads this blog (we're not gonna get into the Manchester-is-Dennis thing again).
So, if you want him to pop over to your joint instead, then invite him over privately, rather than through this - or other - blogs. That'll at least be more direct.
Let's try and avoid slipping into back-biting again.
but what would be the point of this meeting--it would be like the tetley tea bag advert--
what would be the issues on the table--apart from the tea and buns---
manchester is intractable and wont meet anyone halfway or admit to being anything other than always right
the original row as far as i am aware was who found the hv first--david ended up in clink for lurking around in the graveyard but manchester didt
it would take years to settle all the accusations and counter accusations
manchester offers grandly to forgive david, therby stating as always that he is right all the way through and never told one teeny weeny porky
unless these two guys just walk up shake hands and say lets both forgive and forget , cos all we are doing is making a show for others,a tea party is a daft idea---so genteel and english i can see manchesters little finger sticking out while he drinks from his best china teacup.
so--what are the issues to be discussed and what outcome is envisaged and who cares whether creepy dennis crawford is there or not waving his birth certificate
barbara
well if it is going to be private what is the point unless afterwards a signed official statements was issued saying they had resolved their differences and were now friends, no further argy bargy on blogs.
if it was publicly performed then certain points of dispute should be addressed and resolved---as this is never going to happen as they will never reach an agreement on the 'true' version of events the whole idea seems a waste of time,
forget it
barbara
We ALL would enjoy watching these two fellows haggle about a meeting while on each others blogs. It would be a wonderful circus spectacle and I would enjoy hell out of it. Yet I urge them not to do that.
I say keep all communications and face to face meetings private. No matter if they have "witnesses" at their meeting or not, each will publish their own version of what transpired, and each will claim events were in their favour. That's how these two operate!
As for what the "issues" would be, I say leave that to them. Once they see each other they can decide if they want to take things further. The presence of supporters will just distract them. As with Lennon and McCartney, Yoko and Linda Eastman need to be left out of it!
PS: Not to be morbid, but I have another question for David: if you knew that Sean had only a short time to live, would that affect your decision to meet with him in any way?
MORBID MOGGIE
PS: Not to be morbid, but I have another question for David: if you knew that Sean had only a short time to live, would that affect your decision to meet with him in any way?
You are being morbid, you morbid moggie!
If you are implying (you may not be) that I would visit him to forgive him for all his wicked deeds against me (and others) in life, there would be little point. This would be dependent on his first asking for such forgiveness, and that would never happen.
Having said that, I would probably feel a little sorry for him as an individual - indeed, I do now.
Now, no more morbid questions, please Cat!
David (Farrant)
David,
I don't think, at least, at this early point, that it's a question of forgiveness.
There'd be way too much back and forth on it, to make it feasible. For the time being.
I think what we're trying to cultivate here is a sort of...truce.
The tea party (note to Barbara - this is the loose term we're using for it. It won't necessarily literally be a tea party) is to at least forge some degree of civility between you two.
Thus, I think what we want to achieve here, is that you and Manchester at least meet face-to-face, rather than hide behind your respective computers, sniping at each other.
Then, try and have a pleasant morning/afternoon/evening/whatever and see how it goes from there.
well i am all for forgiveness hoggy but i think you are onto a loser here--there is 40 years of hostilities --even hatred--here, in fact evil isnt too strong a word and though no doubt there are faults on both sides bonky has always been the aggressor---manchester might graciously and grandly'forgive' david but he would never let david forgive him cos he thinks he is mr perfect and has never done anything wrong----though i wonder if deep down in his --well--heart---he ever considers the possibility that he is not behaving like the big shot christian he claims to be---he might take a lesson in humble pie from St Therese of Lisieux whose relics are now in england--not sure if the will be at bournmouth but near enough for him to get to in one of his 3 cars---we do need a miracle !
barbara
wisdom can never learn enough
stupidity is sufficient unto itself
metchild of madberg
Either way, it's worth a shot, Barbara.
Like I said, we don't need to focus on forgiveness at the time being. It's just a matter of getting them two in the same room.
Or, on the same phone line, at the very least!
The rest can be worked out from there.
The alternative is perpetual sniping, griping, claims, counter-claims, etc., which I'm sure you'll agree is far less productive. After all, it hasn't worked so far, hasn't it.
no of course it hasn't 'worked' as thet dont want it to, bonky enjoys it too much--may as well try for peace in the middle east or the taliban !
Yeah, but this is the thing, Anon...it quite obviously works both ways.
Like I said: claims and counter-claims and yadda yadda yadda.
They both publish "incriminating" things about the other.
Thus, "forgiveness" would be a bit too early for the time being, which is why I view this as more of a truce.
Dennis' picture and info is on MySpace; also, the MSN forums had early pics of both Dennis and Katrina which I know DF has seen--and he(DF)also KNEW that they were in SM camp 3 decades ago and are still close like family and support him fully-- also, now, AH the true character of DF starts to shine forth for you--a bit of vacillation or instability here ?? it took you this long ?? F was invited in the first instance by BSM 30 years ago--, and F has given more excuses why and not to meet; it is F that does not follow-up because he knowS he'll be exposed as WHO he is. DUH.
If he can be seen to not be solid and consistent in decisions or any other matter, that should be a HUGE clue for you H, you dumb lame juvie fucker....(juvenile)
your so brain-fucked go back to your mother's breast and start over.
If or WHEN this finally comes out into the light YOU are gonna look like more than a moron than anyone in history and I (and someone else I'm quite fond of and can't wait to go out to dinner with)are gonna have a toast to this one...your recent statements about reminding F about certain stated points that he now is unwilling to keep or pursue---is a HUGE HUGE FACTOR AND POINT MADE--are you for real ?! I can even hear in your tone via your statements that you are questioning F's "real-ness";
yeah, well, as time goes by the dark is always exposed by the light and that is already happening, "cousin Hoggy" ;
F has always refused this invite--unconsciously he fears the spiritual truth and his presence in the presence of a MAN of God will more than make him nervous--ANOINTING OF THE HOLY SPIRIT will not allow darkness to remain in the environment.
F has always been disingenuous; but you are too young,TOO INEXPERIENCED IN THE MATTERS OF EVIL AND THEIR MANIFESTATIONS to discern that-- even if a brick hit you in the head; the history I've read and the mere pictures themselves tell a story of truth; truths that SM has repeatedly claimed.
I can tell you THIS--Dennis Crawford is VERY real, making you all look like a bunch of idiots--but F already KNOWS Dennis and Katrina are REAL--even though he denies it--just like with everything he claims; at the most there may be half-truths=some minute fact manipulated and intermingled and twisted for DF'S benefit or use.
AH: do you really believe a "former witch" just all of sudden does a 360 degree and is not the same person ?! that only happens with genuine humble REPENTANCE TO THE LORD JESUS CHRIST...AND THAT IS THE ONE AND ONLY PROOF THAT IS NEEDED TO DISTINGUISH WHO IS REALLY TELLING THE TRUTH---DIDN'T YOU LEARN ANYTHING IN CHURCH OR FROM THE WORD OF GOD ? IF YOU CAN'T SEE ANY CORRELATION HERE, ASK YOUR OWN PARENTS WHAT THEY THINK ABOUT THESE 2 BUT PRESENT CORRECT AND REAL DATA AND PICS--NOT YOUR OWN OPINION; IF NOT YOUR PARENTS PUT THIS IN FRONT OF OTHERS --BUT PICK SOMEONE WHO HAS WISDOM AND CAN DISCERN--NOT LIKE YOU AND NOT A YOUNGER ADULT. ACTUALLY JUST SHOW THEM PICTURES--CUZ THAT TELLS IT ALL. REAL SIMPLE, THEY DON'T EVEN NEED FACTS.
THAT'S HOW GROSSLY FOOLISH YOU ARE--AN ADULT CAN DISCERN JUST BY LOOKING AT A FEW PICTURES. IF MY ADULT DAUGHTER WERE TO COME HOME AND TELL ME SHE HAD TO PICK A DATE BETWEEN DF OR SM--AND SHE HAD PICTURES OF THEM--I COULD TELL HER RIGHT AWAY; AND THEN I WOULD ASK FOR FACTS --WHICH CLEARLY WOULD SUPPORT THE PICTURE. SO,I GAVE YOU 2 FACTORS TO WORK WITH--VERY SIMPLE AND TO BRING TO CONCLUSION QUICKLY; NO LONG-TERM "RESEARCH" OR DIGGING FOR "CLUES" IS NECESSARY. OR YOU COULD PUT THIS IN FRONT OF A TV REPORTER AND ASK HIM/HER WHAT IF ANYTHING, CAN THEY DERIVE FROM THE PICTURES--WITHOUT HAVING THE FACTS. I CAN GUARANTEE THEY WILL TELL YOU ONE LOOKS "SHADY" AND TO WALK CAUTIOUSLY, AND THE OTHER LOOKS NORMAL AND JUST BY READING A FEW OF HIS ANSWERS AND HIS BIO--THEY WOULDN'T THINK TWICE ABOUT WHO THE GENUINE INDIVIDUAL IS.
all of this is clearly revealing your inexperience and, again lack of professional training and university and theological background;
"IF MY ADULT DAUGHTER WERE TO COME HOME AND TELL ME SHE HAD TO PICK A DATE BETWEEN DF OR SM"
I would advise her to go with David. Sean would make her pay for dinner, drinks, everything!
"all of this is clearly revealing your inexperience and, again lack of professional training and university and theological background"
You mean like Manchester and his lack of University and Theology degree?
That's the smartest thing to have come out of your mouth Carol.
Carol,
I just don't have the time to churn through your 'epistle' most of which is based on things I never claimed.
I never claimed that Dennis Crawford and Katrina never existed. Indeed I have met them both.
What I have said is, that the numerous posts written by these people are invariably (and entirely) by the 'bonky one' himself. Just as the individual calling himself "Ariminous Vambery" all over the place, is really 'bonky' again using yet another of his aliases. THOSE are the facts, Carol. Whether of course you choose to believe them, is up to you!
Quite honestly, I matters little to myself. Truth remains Truth and, and I doubt that even God Himself can change that!
I agree with one thing you say though. The Light will most certainly dissolve Darkness in the end. Then all that will be left of poor old 'bonky' will be one discarded tea pot cosy!
David Farrant
PS You can call me David, Carol. I really don't mind!
"I never claimed that Dennis Crawford and Katrina never existed. Indeed I have met them both."
Farrant has only seen Katrina on one occasion when she was among a small crowd of spectators, mostly comprising press photographers, attending a Hallowe'en publicity stunt at Highgate Wood soon after Farrant's release from prison. They did not speak and have never exchanged a word because this was the only time she was in his proximity. Farrant has never met Dennis Crawford in his life. Any claim to the contrary is a lie.
"Just as the individual calling himself Ariminous Vambery all over the place, is really 'bonky' again using yet another of his aliases. THOSE are the facts, Carol. Whether of course you choose to believe them, is up to you!"
A fact is something beyond all reasonable doubt which can be proven to the satisfaction of others. Farrant claiming something to be a "fact" does not make it so. Such claims are invariably always without substance when issuing from him. What is a fact is that Farrant last had brief contact with Seán Manchester almost a quarter of a century ago. He has seen neither hide nor hair of Seán Manchester since. Farrant caught no more than a glimpse of Katrina when she accompanied Seán Manchester to witness the publicity stunt disaster Farrant staged with John Pope at Highgate Wood. Farrant has absolutely no idea who Arminius Vámbéry's is and has certainly never met him.
carol is if i remember rightly the person who called herself constant carol and put some really mad posts up on the cross and the steak pie.
msn then went onto multiply site where the x and steak pie has gone who cares?
neither hide nor hair is a distinctly yorkshire saying--as it wasnt me i wonder who it was
barbara
There is only one truly mad person on here as far as I am concerned, and her name is Barbara Green.
hoho ho
prithee explain--me only ??????????methinks thou art forgetting thyself
FOR CAROL
"Ariminous" (aka 'Bonky') is lying to you Carol.
I met Katrina at my flat with Bonky in July 1984. She took some photographs of Bonky and myself having a 'duel' with swords in Highgate Wood. A couple of these photographs were published a little later in "City Limits" magazine after they had been sent in by Bonky.
Yes, by Bonky himself!
David Farrant
"I met Katrina at my flat with Bonky in July 1984. She took some photographs of Bonky and myself having a 'duel' with swords in Highgate Wood. A couple of these photographs were published a little later in "City Limits" magazine after they had been sent in by Bonky."
Farrant is a pathological liar!
Katrina has never been to Farrant's flat and did not take any photographs as suggested by him. The "duel" pictures were all taken by a journalist on the Hornsey Journal who even provided Farrant with a sword. Farrant has never spoken to Katrina. He only glimpsed her once when, accompanied by Seán Manchester, she was joined the crowd assembled to watch his and John Pope's clowning at Highgate Wood on the evening of 31 October 1976.
Farrant was constantly sending pictures into newspapers whether they wanted to receive them or not. He was absolutely notorious for flooding editors' desks with pictures of himself and would frequently beg press photographers for any they had taken of him.
Peter Hounam, editor of the Hornsey Journal, wrote in that newspaper on 16 July 1974:
“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.”
Arminius Vambery is on Facebook davey..you stated AV is "all over the place"...no dear, only on Facebook or assists the bishop at one or two others I've been to; why don't you ask him where he is as "AV" ??
and....now listen: The bishop me or anyone-- wouldn't have all the time to spare writing up ALL these posts on forums, blog, flogs and groups sites--maybe that's all you do and could conceive of that; but that isn't the bishop--he also has a wife to tend to and any wife in her right mind would leave a guy--who chose her over the computer /internet ahhh, yeah,, he also "pastors" and that takes up 80 or more percent of his time...I know--cause my pastor is never available...to sit and "chat"
D.....I also put up a post to you, at the ripodcast.com after your interview yesterday: F______go get your hair cut because that "little-girl-bob-street-urchin-look" is getting old.
dammit F_____ where's my post about the lab test ??
I can tell you where it is Carol; it was deleted.
But never mind because I answered your post on "Farrant Has His Head Examined". So you can take that as your answer!
If you want to do as I suggested, then please go ahead as I really mean it.
I hope you do because perhaos then, we can prove who's really lieing. You have been 'duped', Sweetheart'! so I just offered to prove it to you. That's all.
David Farrant
concerning I'm duped, making a "suggestion" ??.....you lost me here..I have no idea WHAT is being referred to or WHERE I am being referred to....&_^%+(_)*&
FOR CAROL,
Cat's last Blog was called "Farrant Gets His Head Examined" (or maybe it was further on, infact I think it was).
Anyway, you put 3 replies on it, so you must have seen it! Just look under the 'September archieves' because that's where it is. Anyway, I took up your offer to prove my hair has never been dyed.
That offer is still open. In fact I hope you take it up as I can prove to you that you have been well and truly'duped' about my hair colour.
Personally, I really don't care what you think. But I was just offerring to prove it to you, that's all!
David Farrant
carol--how does a wife need 'tending to'--we know he rescued her from the clutches of satanists in the 1970s but surely she can manage without being tended to these days--your posts are incoherant twaddle--the bishop does not hold church services--we asked him--neither does he have a pastoral ministry or pastors unless you count brother keithybaby----we asked him ad he told us straight, what exactly his bishoply duties are no one has figured out yet
barbara
"carol--how does a wife need 'tending to'--we know he rescued her from the clutches of satanists in the 1970s but surely she can manage without being tended to these days"
Any wife needs looking after by their husband. That might sound old fashioned, but some still hold to how it has been for most of mankind's history. Obviously Barbara Green doesn't. Incidentally, the bishop did not even know his wife in the 1970s. As usual, this obsessed Yorkshirewoman gets everything wrong. Maybe she should stick to obsessing about the grave she believes Robin Hood is buried in? But without harassing the landowner and others in her neck of the wood she attacks.
"the bishop does not hold church services"
How would Barbara Green know what the bishop does? He actually holds Masses on most days of the week. Green must have attempted to find out where from someone other than the bishop and was obviously not told because anyone with half a brain would not invite a madwoman to post addresses on the internet or provide them to someone who would that very thing (as they have in the past).
"neither does he have a pastoral ministry or pastors unless you count brother keithybaby----we asked him ad he told us straight"
Barbara Green is an inveterate liar. She has not spoken or communicated by any other means with the bishop for a great many years reaching back into the previous century. When the bishop phoned her some time back to ask why she was harassing him on the internet and behaving in such a disgusting and deceitful manner she promptly put the telephone down on him after telling him she would not talk to him. She had the perfect opportunity to genuinely ask where he celebrates Mass when he phoned her, but chose not to do so. Green only wants to stalk, defame, harass and abuse this man and anyone she believes supports him. Is it any wonder she would not be given information by someone who know the bishop?
How would Barbara Green possibly know that he doesn't have deacons and priests, or indeed other bishops, within his jurisdiction? She doesn't know, of course. All she does is mindlessly mimic Farrant and spew forth endless fabrications and lies.
"what exactly his bishoply duties are no one has figured out yet"
Barbara Green would need to grow a brain to figure anything out. What I can't figure out is what business it is of hers. His duties are the duties of any other ordained and consecrated person who oversees a church, irrespective of its size. What's to figure out?
"your posts are incoherant twaddle"
Though aimed at Carol, doesn't "twaddle" describe Barbara Green's comments perfectly?
the bishop told myself and cf the late lamented secretary of david farrant that he didnt, thats how i know, its on a message board of his--he said bishops dont preach--which is rubbish---and he refused to give us details of his service times--further enquiries via bournmouth tourist board and all the churches in the uk had no record of him and his 'church'--furthermore if such a horrid person celebrates mass it is a travesty and even if he was a good and holy person which he has clearly demonstrated he isnt by his unchristian behaviour, the mass would still not be valid cos his church isnt--it is simply a dickipoggy cult run by a puffed up pretender--i dont know what phone call he is on about other than one when my friend was here and he got all narky cos she knew more about the bible than he did and another taken when i was out and told about my sister i havent had the honour of listening to his dulcet tones since he struck me off his social list
barbara
"i dont know what phone call he is on about"
There was only ever one telephone call made by the bishop to this woman. The rest of what Barbara Green is bleating on about is false.
He telephoned her at her Brighouse, Yorkshire, address on July 7th last year. He did so on legal advice following her years of cyberstalking and harassment. The telephone call was recorded.
Barbara Green was told who was making the call and that the call was confidential. At that point she told the bishop she would not speak to him and very promptly put the receiver down, cutting off the call.
If Barbara Green attempts to deny any of this, or invents other calls that were not made, it is just more time in the confession box for her when next she visits her church.
anonymous--you seem to be privy to a lot of confidential info but anyhow its pettifogging persiflage and i dont remember owt about it only what i have already told you, why dont you turn your nosepoking into defending the bishops lovely wife, surely a more worthy cause for your interference than some alleged phone call which if it had happened-or not--is of no consequence anyhow,
barbara
july 7th last year? i should remember that if it is so--maybe i was having one of my retarded and
insane episodes,need to check my calendar to see if i was at home, or it could have been a diabolical spirit or vampire answering the phone---well well., but he did have that row over the phone with my friend in the 1980s--she remembers t well, she kept calling him my lord cos she thought he was for real then, she told him there were spelling and grammar mistakes in his book and that he was all wrong about revelations---he was not amused
tata barbara
"you seem to be privy to a lot of confidential"
It would have been confidential if Barbara Green had actually held a conversation, but she refused.
The recorded call is now archived. I have heard it as have others.
"why dont you turn your nosepoking into defending the bishops lovely wife"
Why? Because I don't need to defend his wife who isn't involved despite Green's and Farrant's attempts to involve her and Craig Adams attempts to imitate her by fraudulently using her name on other sites. All of which is very pathetic and reveals what sort of scum these "people" are. Animals behave far better!
"july 7th last year? i should remember that if it is so--maybe i was having one of my retarded and
insane episodes,need to check my calendar to see if i was at home"
Barbara Green was home. I have heard the call and she sounds very old and frail. A missed opportunity if ever there was one.
"he did have that row over the phone with my friend in the 1980s"
As if the bishop would be calling Barbara Green's demented friends? He didn't even come into accidental contact with Green at a public event until the end of the 1980s!
I've just one thing to say to Barbara Green:
Get a life!
There's still time.
Naughty, naughty, Craig. I had to delete a comment of yours that addressed a certain woman by name.
Everyone is free to carry on with their usual nonsense, but anything that will attract our litigious friends will be removed.
aw sorry cat.
yeah i forgot how demented he gets.
forgive me and i shall buy you a pint of cat milk.
well tell me what i said in my old and frail voice--i thought i refused to speak to him and put the phone down--which if it had happened i would have done anyway--and he shouldnt be bullying a frail old lady like me----the time he spoke to my friend was because she was at my house when he phoned and she had something to ask him after reading his book--you are a vicious cowardly bag of wind, nonymous, spouting second hand rubbish on bishy's behalf--though of couse we all know who you are!
barbara
oh shit.....there wasn't anything or anyone to debate tonight:
Barb: do have long gray hair ? I only ask because I think I saw your picture
how ya all are ?
Obama-wam-bam-alam I perceive your comment was aimed at me...hmm
Oh Carol!
They're still a lot to 'debate' Carol.
Well, try me and leave Barbara alone for a change.
Come after the truly 'evil one' (supposedly me - according to 'Bonky' at least) and answer my challenge to you about my 'dyed hair'. I've offered to give you proof that this is just another of 'bonky's' lies.
Why are you so silent all of a sudden on this matter?
Well, Carol, I thinmk everyone is waiting! . . .
David Farrant
thanks david
i dont know why carol is no interested in the colour of both your and my hair--
re the mysterious phone call from bonky
well as i spoosedly put the phone down straight away all he got was me saying hello in my 'old frail' voice--haha.
however he denies the two other calls, now my artist psychic friend spoke to him in the 1980s and can affirm this--i wont put her name up out of consideration but bonky knows exactly who i mean
and my sister who took the other several years later when i was out can also affirm it--if we were really that bothered, which i arent as it is all very pointless but he is actually denying these two real calls so on that score its perfectly in keeping for him to make a call up.
of course nonymous is himself because who would go to the trouble of writing all his winging claptrap up for him on his behalf, this time he has decided to be nameless as well as gutless
tata barbara
ps carol i have long golden wavy tresses down to my feet
Carol, are this month's centerfold for Crack Whore Magazine?
FOR CAROL,
FOR CAROL
If you really do make centrefold pages (or any others)of the magazine mentioned, please forward me an original. Doesn't matter if you've got bleached hair or not, I'd love to get a copy.
Yours,
David (Farrant)
I leave you kids alone for a little while and this is what I come back to! Ha!
To be honest, I'm not surprised it's slipped back into this morass of garbage.
Afterall, it's much more productive, than, say, Dave or Manchester actually bloody contacting each other!
Dave, I know you're not keen on making the move to contact Manchester, which is why you're putting up all these silly roadblocks. After all, you've reneged on the deal several times now.
Trying to twist his public offer (which I clearly notified you about) into your own, proves that.
Carol, you're not helping in the slightest. If anything, you're extremely detrimental to the VRS "cause". Whatever that might be.
"Anonymous", I presume you're Dennis as you got rumbled when you were posting here via your Blogger account. Grow up.
Now let's get this bloody tea party back on the road.
You know, I just don't understand this "he who makes the first offer is entitled to have all of his conditions accepted" rubbish, Anthony.
I mean, historically speaking, we don't even know if the Bishop's recent offer of a meeting was even the first. What if 3 years ago Farrant proposed a meeting in Scotland suggesting that they both wear pink kilts and lipstick. What then? Wouldn't the Bishop be bound to agree to it? And if he didn't, or wanted to change the locale to England and lose the costumes, would he be "putting up roadblocks?"
Post a Comment