Need to incite emotionally unstable religious fanatics into action? Vampire Research Society's get it done. Consider this exchange recently posted on the group's
Facebook page discussion forum:
Vambery: Farrant is an almost empty shell possessed by demons. It is those demons who are a force to be reckoned with...(followed by long explanation of how Farrant is almost completely made up of evil demons)
Edwin Blackwood: For one so infested with demons, would it not be prudent to take, shall we say, unorthodox measures...
Vambery: What are you suggesting? Please try and be a little more specific.
Edwin Blackwood: Circumlocution? It would seem to me that you have an enemy who is, as you infer, a roiling mass of demons. Take measures as your faith dictates.
Vambery later commented off the record, "No, no, no. I wasn't advocating Farrant be harmed in any way, I was merely observing that he's an empty shell full of demons, and a silver bullet or a stake dipped in holy water for example, when introduced into the region of his mid thorax by an individual blessed by the Holy Spirit, should, in theory, only affect the demons."
Need to incite emotionally unstable religious fanatics into action? Vampire Research Society's get it done. Consider this exchange recently posted on the group's Facebook page discussion forum:
79 comments:
Carol was witty and cerebral as usual:
"we are EXACTLY--what should be on a "RIGHTEOUS INDIGNATION" DISCUSSION BOARD SO WE CAN FRY FARRANT LIKE A SHISH-KA-BOB"
Not only is she drug addled, she's now blood thirsty. I love her calling Manchester "BSM." Maybe she has BSM fantasies with Manchester as her Master.
"No, no, no. I wasn't advocating Farrant be harmed in any way"
thats cos hes currently advocating harming me with his thinly veiled threats on this very blog!
u heard it here folks my days are numbe...
Well who knows, Craig. My current theory is that allowing open comments on blogs like this let homicidal maniac stalkers to get all the pent up aggression out of their systems so they don't need to go act it out in real life. However, I could be wro...
Hi Craig
Wondered where you'got to. Still waiting for the new banner on my Blog incidentally!
I see 'Ariminous' has started yet again. Talk about a 'manic obsessive' - his whole life seems to evole around myself! I've since learned from a most unexpected source, that his wife even serves him meals at his computer, so great is his desire not to 'get away' from myself. Not even for one minute in case he 'misses something'!
By the way Craig, when are you going to get around to joining the Friends of David Farrant?
You're supposed to be one you know!
David
Let's face it, he needs all the friends he can get!
FOR EVERYONE
Hey you lot, I've just figured out what "BSM" atands for! "Bonky Sado Masochism"!
Got to be it - no wonder Carol is such a true disciple!
David Farrant
And that is the sum total of Farrant's wit?
This is someone soon to "celebrate" his sixty-fourth birthday!
I said sixty-four, but anyone could be forgiven for thinking his comments come from a six year old.
It wsan't me who first thought of it, 'anonymous' - just in case you hadn't noticed!
David Farrant
Here's a question for David. One of the bishop's supporters recently said this about his detractors:
"Deep down they would shiver in their shoes if they had to sit in front of him and face him--especially formally and in public, or for that matter, even one on one. I would not want to debate the bishop -- there's an authority anointing that a person can sense...and you just feel like your in the presence of a Godly man or, you're in a "greater" presence...I KNOW that they fear that."
You have sat in front of the man both formally and in public. Were you scared, intimidated, awed?
POSSESSED
I was neither 'scared', 'intimidated' or 'awed', Cat. Quite the opposite in fact!
The person we are discussing has absolutely nothing in his psyche that would be capable of enhancing or projecting such qualities: or indeed, raising these in others.
On the many, many occasions I was alone with his, he would persistently mock others and would laugh almost hysterically at others' misfortunes. He was also quite prone to using foul language, the 'f' word being one of his favourites.
Can I prove this? Most definitely yes. But I don't even have to when I can let him do this himself!
I still have all the secret tapes of our conversations, and believe me, it does not paint a very pretty picture!
In fact, the tapes disclose a man possessed. You could even say 'by a hoard of demons' - that wouldn't be far wrong!
David Farrant
"On the many, many occasions I was alone with his, he would persistently mock others and would laugh almost hysterically at others' misfortunes."
What a perfect description of Farrant!
Because that is EXACTLY what so many others have said about Farrant. I am talking about those who actually knew him - not those who only know of him through their computer screen, or have met him briefly in a pub where they were obliged to buy him one drink after another in order to extract a stuttered interview of contradictions and calumny.
This is what I have heard from people who knew him intimately or just knew him as a fellow frequenter of pubs. What a waste of space!
"You have sat in front of the man both formally and in public. Were you scared, intimidated, awed?"
Where did Baldry's Cat get this notion from because its without foundation and utter rubbish?
Farrant never faced Manchester in public or formally on any other occasion. Where do these people get their weird ideas from other than their own heads? What substances has Baldry's Cat been smoking?
Try asking those who actually know the answer - not just one perverted side but both sides. That includes Manchester who as far as I am aware has not been in a face off with Farrant. If he had we would all know about it. And so would Farrant.
It's not too late for a face to face.
How about it Farrant?
Has the cat got your tongue?
How about what, Sean? If you can't face me on here using your own name instead of 'anonymous, how could you possibly be trusted to appear in person. If you're too scared to 'do it on paper' here, that makes your request no more than an idle threat.
Find the guts to sign your own name to yout allegations instead of hiding behind aliases such as "Ariminous", "Anonymous" or "Demonologist", I might begin to take you a little more seriously!
Over to you, Sean.
David Farrant
PS Yes, we can all see it coming . . . "I am not SM . . . Just a close friend who he confides in", etc. etc.
All I can to that Sean in advance is BULLDUST! (My word - not Don Ecker's).
Forget the crap, Farrant.
Get your arse into gear and face the man you have been willing to attack and defame for the past forty years.
All you want to do is stammer excuses when you're not evading and sidetracking to get out of the inevitable confrontation.
We're all sick of hearing your evaisve tactics.
Put up or belt up, you useless article!
Hmmm, it seems Bonky is finally totally unglued. Show us your colors you fraud.
If you are not Sean, 'Anonymous' how can it possibly be evasion when its absolutely nothing to do with yourself?
How are you qualified to arrange any potential meeting when you are not even the person concerned??
How come this apparently means so much to you if you yourself have not 'been libelled'?
The mind truly boggles!
David Farrant
"cerebral" if you mean I use ALL the brain faculties=intellect, intuition and instinct. I believe that was one of my complaints about the writings here --that none of you know how to read editorially or rhetorically, intellectually or intuitively.
I am also analytical and per the above VERY intuitive.
Carol IS--IS witty--not "was"
Pirate: your a moronic protozoan and you lost your way back to the slime bog from whence you came.
You do a "my Dad can beat up your Dad" , or the old "sticks and stones"
crap...come up with something worthy of argument
dumb FUCK Head
and, yeah, I was right about trystan swale's RI board---I AM "righteous indignation" in the flesh.
He couldn't handle it either nor could the girls--so we were banned.
Concerning the bishop--it is YOU guys who always bring him up--can't you debate or war--without mentioning him ? seems to me ya all are just a bit co-dependent on having him always in the conversation, and if you have any keenness of insight you will notice-I hardly EVER bring him up...I don't need to ride his thunder-- like ya all do. I bring my own thunder to the table.
Yeah, try and be "cerebral" just once>>>because you only use your faulty dim-witted lobotomized pea-brain. You gave me another compliment by stating I am "cerebral"=INTELLECTUAL (+INTUITION +INSTINCT) MAKES FOR ONE SMART AND ATTRACTIVE WOMAN BECAUSE I UTILIZE ALL 3 AND APPLY MANY OTHER USEFUL "BRAIN" FUNCTIONS, UNLIKE YA ALL
oh yes it was Davey..YOU thought of it FIRST...IT WAS YOU AND ONLY YOU
the only "bonkers fans" are the ones who own and manage this blog
David what do you think about exorcism ? seriously. Do you know anything about it ?
and don't try to "go around" this by bringing up the bishop---this is MY question regarding a particular rite of the Church and your 'take' on it.
What are your thoughts ?
when someone says "Carol was....", means I have fans. Fans follow people they admire where ever they may go.....and "get" information on the person they admire..
davey..your'e so funny...you get so easily offended and YOU WERE THE FIRST ONE TO SAY ANYTHING AND TO THINK OF IT. YOU. YEAH, YOU.
so now dave, you DO admit you are possessed.
DOES IT ITCH ???
ok its OFFICIAL.
DFarrant and his peeps are spying on us....yep.
now, that's intriguing....because that takes TIME.
I don't do that.
Once, when I was on my own facebook, I searched for DF and he's on facebook--other than there or here I know nothing else.
So, you guys are our FANS.
And where is FRIENDS OF DAVID FARRANT ??
DAVEY.....I've told you and told you and told you, "Sean" is NOT in our blog world here--he has too many ecclesiastical duties on a daily basis; I told you, I'm privy to certain info, pics and events. He is NOT here--when I come to London to visit, will you please let me help you find a shrink ? I'll even go with you....this obsession with "Sean" has got to stop--this is not healthy for you; you are "fixated".
ddaaave...none of this is on "paper" here. we are all in a virtual interface via hyper-space. ANY bishop with 1/4 brain--would NOT hang out in virtual blog-land.
"How are you qualified to arrange any potential meeting when you are not even the person concerned?"
I haven't offered to arrange any potential meeting. I stated that if you slag someone off every day of your miserable life you should have the courage to face them. You obviously haven't any intention of coming face to face with Manchester, preferring to hide behind closed doors and tap away at a computer keyboard instead. There is something repulsive about a man like you who wants to spread lies but not face the person you are lying about.
How come this means so much to me? It means something to any half decent person who has watched your antics for any length of time. There are plenty out there who feel the same way. They prefer to ignore you, as I have until now.
The mind truly boggles at how you, Farrant, have been content to try and harm innocent people in your vendetta against Manchester and the time-consuming lengths you have gone to. You spend every day of your life making defamatory and abusive remarks about Manchester and anyone you assume to be his friend or associate. There is something deeply wrong with you and we both know what that is. You dabbled in things you don't understand to attract publicity and in doing so you became infested with evil. Call them demons. Call them what you like. But they are in you, Farrant.
Tell me Cat honestly (if you can!) just what IS that makes me have such an effect upon people?
All I am doing is trying to work on my books, run a Society (with no bloody secretary at the moment' give the odd interview or Talk, and I am beseiged by people like Carol, bonky and other mad females trying to distract me.
(and before you get too smug, Cat, I have to say that your're not much better by encouraging them - although the difference is you're not nasty!).
OK Carol. I'll answer your exorcism question later. But not now. I'm tired!
I'll also answer the latest ravings by "Anonymous". But again, not now - and again, I'm tired!
But I always answer you people so don't worry - though sometimes I don't know why I bother.
Well Cat, can you answer my 'effect' question? Interested to know what you really think - seriously.
Till later
David
PS Get your facts right Carol. It was not me who first suggested the SM Bonky thing - it was Pirate. Go back and look you stupid girl!
"Tell me honestly (if you can!) just what IS that makes me have such an effect upon people?"
What effect do you imagine you have, Farrant, when you spend every day of your life defaming one man and sometimes that man's wife, friends and associates? You post offensive and insulting tirades on your own blog and on other people's blogs and boards. You have sent your poisonous material to the man's wife and her family. You have also sent it to his friends and associates. You have published his private address in your vile pamphlets and on the net. You have even had various people take photographs of the outside of his house for publication in your pamphlets and to distribute on the net. These images have been accompanied by incitements of hatred. You malign and libel this person almost every time you are interviewed and on every other occasion the opportunity arises.
You have identified and misrepresented innocent third parties you believe to have a historical connection to this man and have published matters about him deserving of severe punishment. If it was me, I would wrench your head from your body for just a fraction of what you have done to him.
These things you have done relentlessly for four decades. Others witness your behaviour, especially on the net. It has a negative effect on them where you are concerned. Now do you understand?
You are always tired and everything is always going to be "dealt with" later. But it never is dealt with, is it? Each time, it all turns into the same old familiar stream of abuse against the same person.
Now it might be time to "deal with" you, Farrant.
CORRECTION
"You have published his private address in your vile pamphlets and on the net".
I did NOT print his private address, I did not even print the name of the road. In fact, I did not even confirm it was in Bournemouth. All I did ws print a picture of his tiny house which could have been one of millions in England.
So get your facts right first Sweetheart!
It was Bonky who was putting up peoples' private addresses and telephone numbers on the Internet trying to 'incite hatred' against them.
He did it to myself, he did it to the Yorshire Pudding and he did it to Gareth, Patsy and Kevin. He also published my private address in his pamphlet From Satan etc which he released in 1987.
So again, stop trying to twist the facts. You're getting almost as bad as Bonky. Not very Christian of you, so you must be following an extremely bad example!
David Farrant
CORRECTION
"You have published his private address in your vile pamphlets and on the net".
I did NOT print his private address, I did not even print the name of the road. In fact, I did not even confirm it was in Bournemouth. All I did ws print a picture of his tiny house which could have been one of millions in England.
So get your facts right first Sweetheart!
It was Bonky who was putting up peoples' private addresses and telephone numbers on the Internet trying to 'incite hatred' against them.
He did it to myself, he did it to the Yorshire Pudding and he did it to Gareth, Patsy and Kevin. He also published my private address in his pamphlet From Satan etc which he released in 1987.
So again, stop trying to twist the facts. You're getting almost as bad as Bonky. Not very Christian of you, so you must be following an extremely bad example!
David Farrant
"He also published my private address in his pamphlet From Satan etc which he released in 1987."
On page 51 of From Satan To Christ, published in 1988, is found a photograph of a threatening letter and challenge to a duel sent by you, Farrant, to Manchester. It includes his full address at the top, written in your hand, and your own address at the foot, also written in your recognisable handwriting. What problem do you have with that?
Your address, Farrant, is public property because you have published it many times in the past. You later used a Post Office Box Number which Royal Mail are obliged to disclose to enquirers regarding the address behind it. Anyone enquiring will be given your full home address in Muswell Hill Road, London, by Royal Mail. You circulate your PO Box everywhere you can. It is now public property.
You and Craig Adams have published Manchester's private address on the net and have given it to others to do the same. On one occasion Adams even included a map of how to find it. This moron Adams is your webmaster. Without him you would have no website, no blog, nothing! He designs your idiotic sites and blogs and keeps them updated.
And don't use the "not very Christian" tag with me. It won't work. You don't know what I am.
Know this though, Farrant. I'm onto you!
"On page 51 of From Satan To Christ, published in 1988, is found a photograph of a threatening letter and challenge to a duel sent by you, Farrant, to Manchester. It includes his full address at the top, written in your hand, and your own address at the foot, also written in your recognisable handwriting. What problem do you have with that?"
The only problem I have with that, my dear, is that you have got it wrong again.
Firstly, 15 Pond Square was not Bonky's private address but an open coffee shop where Bonky asked me to send mail. I have a tape recording of Bonky empathaising that I should not use his private address foe anything, so I didn't.
Secondly, that was a private letter of my copyright I did not intend it for publication and gave no permission.
So there is a big difference between that and what you're now trying to imply. One very big differenc!
I do not get your point about PO Box numbers. If you look inside the cover of that book you can see that Bonky was using a PO Box number. But that PO Box number was registered in the name of Diana Brewster, whereas I knew his private address then but did not use it. So what's your point. Afraid I've missed it.
Whatever Sweetheart, I can see that you are a great fan of mine. The hatred and resentment almost flies off the paper!
Peroxide, you back again?!
David Farrant
"Firstly, 15 Pond Square was not Bonky's private address but an open coffee shop."
First, 15 Pond Square was the publishing address for the British Occult Society. It was also a photographic gallery run by Manchester's secretary exhibiting and selling Manchester's framed pictures of Hamsptead and Highgate. The coffee shop was and still remains at 64 Highgate Highgate Street. The coffee shop was and still is on the first floor with its entrance in the High Street. The gallery was in Pond Square at ground level where its entrance was located.
"Secondly, that was a private letter of my copyright I did not intend it for publication and gave no permission."
Second, you don't have to give consent when it's a threatening letter with a PUBLIC challenge. You reiterated the challenge in your letter to the press. You should have taken action if you thought otherwise, but action has never really been your strong point, has it? You prefer making threats!
Third, irrespective of whoever else uses PO Box numbers, the fact is that YOU do, and that the private address behind any PO BOX in the UK must be disclosed to enquirers. Hence your Muswell Hill Road address, which is the address behind your PO Box number, is technically public property.
-"Tell me Cat honestly (if you can!) just what IS that makes me have such an effect upon people?"
Simply put: human nature craves drama and conflict.
That's why our culture has invented TV, film, novels, tabloid newspapers, sports, celebrity wrestling, etc.
That is why political struggles among parties exist. Not to mention wars.
History is full of examples. People LOVE conflict and drama. It's part of the human condition. And the row between YOU and BONKY just happens to provide it -- by the cart load.
So unless you're willing to give up being "David Farrant of Highgate Vampire Fame", you might as well accept everything that comes with it.
Think of yourself as a kind of football player, albeit, in a very small league. Fans of the opposing team boo and shout insults at you. Fans of your team hold up colourful banners praising you.
This goes for you too, Bonky. My advice to you both is "play hard, but play nicely."
First, I cannot believe Manchester gives this blog any of his time. So who is Baldry's Cat addressing?
Second, the advice to "play hard, but play nicely" is absolute garbage when you examine the facts.
Third, Farrant spends every day of his life defaming Manchester and sometimes Manchester's wife, friends and associates. Farrant posts offensive and insulting tirades on his own blog and on other people's blogs and boards. He has sent his poisonous material to Manchester's wife and her family. He has also sent the same malicious material to Manchester's friends and associates. Farrant has published Manchester's private address on the net and also photographs of his residence in vile pamphlets. Farrant has had various people take photographs of the outside of Manchester's house to distribute on the net. Such images have been accompanied by incitements of hatred. Farrant maligns and libels Manchester almost every time he is interviewed and on any other occasion the opportunity arises.
Fourth, Farrant has identified and misrepresented innocent third parties he believes to have an historical connection to Manchester and has published matters about them deserving severe punishment. If it was me, I would have wrenched Farrant's head from its shoulders for just a fraction of what he has done to Manchester and others.
How is any of the above "playing hard, but playing nicely"?
Get a grip!
CUT AND PASTE -
IT CAN GET TO BECOME A HABIT!
So you've taken to 'cut and pasting' now 'Anonymous'?!
I seem to have already read this . . .
", Farrant spends every day of his life defaming Manchester and sometimes Manchester's wife, friends and associates. Farrant posts offensive and insulting tirades on his own blog and on other people's blogs and boards. He has sent his poisonous material to Manchester's wife and her family. He has also sent the same malicious material to Manchester's friends and associates. Farrant has published Manchester's private address on the net and also photographs of his residence in vile pamphlets. Farrant has had various people take photographs of the outside of Manchester's house to distribute on the net. Such images have been accompanied by incitements of hatred. Farrant maligns and libels Manchester almost every time he is interviewed and on any other occasion the opportunity arises.
Fourth, Farrant has identified and misrepresented innocent third parties he believes to have an historical connection to Manchester and has published matters about them deserving severe punishment. If it was me, I would have wrenched Farrant's head from its shoulders for just a fraction of what he has done to Manchester and others"
You are doing now what Bonky does all the time Sweetheart. Just repeating your own nonsense when you have already posted it! That's exactly what Bonky does all the time.
Now can you see now that you've done it yourself?!
David Farrant
I'm considering bringing graduate psychology students in here to study the chaos.
For Anonymous:
I take it that you have not been in Highgate for a long time, or you would have known that the coffee house you mentioned closed several years ago - I forget exactly when, but I do recall showing two ladies around Highgate Village in the summer of 2004, and pointing out to them where it had once been. It was the original registration address of Box 542, but whilst as you said in theory this is the person's real address, I doubt if Bonky used to sleep under a table there when the place shut for the night. You refer to those 'who actually knew him' so I take it you have never met? Also, I don't know if you might be 'Peroxide', but I assume that you are the same 'Anonymous' who elsewhere described Bonky as living in a 5/6 bedroom house. Probably you have not been there either, but to judge from photographs of it, is an absolutely standard house of the commonest kind in Britain, i.e. with a bathroom and three bedrooms on the upper floor. If there are five or six bedrooms up there then some of them must be cupboard sized.
Gareth J. Medway
To JBC: well I think that's jolly fine idea about the psychs
"You are doing now what Bonky does all the time Sweetheart. Just repeating your own nonsense when you have already posted it! That's exactly what Bonky does all the time. Now can you see now that you've done it yourself?!"
There is NO evidence of Manchester doing anything of the kind while I can understand how others might feel the need to REPEAT what they are saying because you IGNORE everything you find difficult, which is virtually everything, and seem to believe that by sticking your head in the sand it will just go away. And if you look a little more closely you will see that I did NOT "cust and paste" - the wording is altered and different.
"I take it that you have not been in Highgate for a long time, or you would have known that the coffee house you mentioned closed several years ago."
Wrong again, Farrant. The coffee place has not been closed that long and it had no connection to the publishing address of the British Occult Society which was in Pond Square at street level. The coffee place was on the first floor (and technically still is) at 67 Highgate High Street.
Somebody sympathetic to Satanists by the name of Gareth Medway claims Manchester's residence: "is an absolutely standard house of the commonest kind in Britain, i.e. with a bathroom and three bedrooms on the upper floor. If there are five or six bedrooms up there then some of them must be cupboard sized."
Those who have actually been to Manchester's private residence describe it as Edwardian, having at least five spacious bedrooms, and being unusual in many ways. It apparently has a vast dining room with an oak table comfortably seating twelve people and a massive sun lounge for relaxation. There are also apparently two bathrooms. I would suggest to anyone skulking about like Medway to get their facts straight before making themselves look stupid. Then again, Medway is a Farrant disciple which sort of explains everything he has to say with regard to Manchester.
Now lets take a look at where Medway and Farrant live ...... one step away from a cardboard box under a bridge! I am beginning to understand the envy which motivates them to spout and spew lies about Manchester's life.
These people are the very dregs of humanity!
No, YOU look closely!
"And if you look a little more closely you will see that I did NOT "cust and paste" - the wording is altered and different"
Are you really trying to be serious?! The substance of your post was virtually identical to the one you posted before.
As to my 'ignoring' it, there is really no point in answering. Everybody knows that the reason those booklets were written was to RETRACT similar cut and pasted garbage Bonky had been circulating all over the Internet. Anybody reading them can see that: that is why each chapter or article in the booklets is devoted to correcting lies and deciept which HAD PREVIOUSLY BEEN CIRCULATED.
That is also why articles had appropriate headings such as . . . "Web of Deciept".
Thats why the booklets had to be published, that's all - simple as that!
As for 'sending these to Bonky's inlaws' . . . again, get your facts right!
After the booklets had been lodged at the 6 major University Libraries in the UK (all with official ISBN's obviously) a few complimentary copies were sent out to selected people. These were sent by myself and signed NOT sent anonynously. I sent one to Bonky's wife and another to his mother-in-Law. And why not? After all, Bonky had previously blatant untruthes about myself all over the world-wide Internet. I had every right to do this.
I'm afraid you've got your priorities slightly wrong, Sweetheart!
Still, I suppose what can one expect from some resentful female!?
David Farrant
"Everybody knows that the reason those booklets were written was to RETRACT similar cut and pasted garbage Bonky had been circulating all over the Internet."
You began self-publishing your malicious booklets about Manchester in 1991. That was long before Manchester or anyone connected to him was on the net.
"I sent one to Bonky's wife and another to his mother-in-Law. And why not?"
What has Manchester's wife and her mother got to do with your vendetta against Manchester? Why would you want to send vile and vicious items in pamphlet form to either of these people?
You have also sent the same poisonous material to friends and associates of Manchester. What have any of these people got to do with your quarrel with Manchester?
WRONG AGAIN SEAN
My book "Beyond the Highgate Vampire" was published in 1991 and gave my side of the story about the Highgate investigation - that's all.
The Booklets were published in 2000 with the sole intention of correcting malicious lies YOU had been spreading about myself all across the Internet.
Anybody reading them can see they are not 'vile'. Indeed, that is the reason they were put on public release.
You might write 'vile' material, Sean . . . I don't!
Your booklets, Farrant, are extremely libellous, malicious and contain significant amounts of stolen copyright material.
Yet you STILL evade the question of what has Manchester's wife and her mother got to do with your hate campaign against Manchester? Why would you want to send material defaming Manchester to either of these people? You have also sent the same anti-Manchester pamphlets to friends and associates of his. What have any of these people got to do with your quarrel with Manchester?
This is the third attempt to get an answer.
I would have thought the answer was obvious Sean.
Look at it this way: you were circulating vile and untrue material on the Internet for the whole world to see.
Did you care who might have seen it? No?!
Your wife and mother-in-Law could have been told about this malicious material posted by yourself by any number of people - without me even sending any booklets out personally.
So that's your obvious answer to that. I really thought that this was so obvious it didn't have to be explained to you!
David Farrant
daaaave...I'm not a "mad" female ......I just like to play with bad boys....in a , "covert" "toying" kind of way....because I'm intelligent... and I know how...
even my own buds take me wrong....but I know EXACTLY what I am doing.
you were and are intimidated by bishop Manchester....but you will never-ever admit it.
Even an active devoted lay person in a church--becomes very intimidated when they are in actual close presence of a "bishop"......can't explain it..except that we, as church goers KNOW what is the scope and length of their training, its just a more unusual experience than if you just visit or sit in with the pastor or priest of a church....and God makes it so because the bishop role is far higher calling than any other in the church--they are our authority and determine what will be and not be concerning the church...its just the way it is....there's more respect and the Lord has NOT given me that
I'm not "nasty" Daaaave--just very blunt.
I have no hatred in my good heart for ANYONE ON THIS BLOG...despite WHAT you all think, I love the Lord Jesus, and, because of that, I have to adhere to "certain" Christian protocols...if I want my prayers answered and in "right" standing with Him
I just like to play....
you know what I've come to conclusion on:
I think YOU Mr. Farrant....created the entire hair-dye debacle, used it and then blamed the bishop, stating HE brought the whole thing up to be publicized and now mock him......YOU LITTLE weenie of a WEASEL
His blogs, groups, etc , his writings, etc are without question always decent and above board. I have not and never found anything--that even hints at him having stated ANYTHING OF THE KIND.
YOU DYE YOUR HAIR--AND TRY TO MAKE EXCUSE FOR IT USING THE BISHOP. IT'S CALLED "BLAME TRANSFERENCE."
It's also called "reverse mud-slinging." ya little twerp.
I heard you have a "hump" on your back.....which means..........
I can call you HUNCHBACK.
daaaa-vid...
how come everyone in the world thru history gets gray, white, silver or pepper-gray hair at or around a specific "age" time, which is built into the gene DNA sequence--automatically.........
but YOU seem to be excluded ..hmm??
THAT is illogical, irrational, uncanny, unbelievable, un-real, psychotic, pathological, UN-SCIENTIFIC and just plain BONKY.
I would like YOU to explain your hypothesis on this particular ANATOMICAL anomaly....about your hair. THANK YOU.
I have to clarify: at the end of my one bishop-calling thing, at the end I wasn't thinking and posted cuz I actually wasn't done writing and now it looks like I said : that the Lord has NOT given me that respect yet...God, I was not meaning that--but was thinking of other thoughts, got distracted and posted thinking I was done. SHIT
FOR CAROL,
I have answered your question about 'time' on the other heading, Carol.
I think I've said to you before, that I do have respect for properly ordained members of the Church, whether they be Decons, Priests or Bishops. I have never 'attacked' any, and I do not intend to start now. Most of them are good people and devote their lives to the service of others.
The person you keep discussing, however, is definitely NOT a genuine 'bishop' and devotes his life to harming as many people as he can I have no respect for such people, as indeed for people who may inadvertently support them.
In fact,the person you keep bringing up, is not recognised or acknowledged by any genuine Christian demominations; indeed, he is ridiculed by many genuine Priests and Bishops for attempting to claim religious 'credentials' - which he just does not have.
So I'm sorry Carol, the person you refer to - and keep referring to - is NOT a bone fide bishop. He only adopts this status for 'tax purposes' in the UK, and is therefore not deserving of any genuine religious respect. Which is why he does not get any such respect from a majority of people.
David Farrant
"[Manchester's] wife and mother-in-Law could have been told about this malicious material posted by yourself by any number of people - without me even sending any booklets out personally."
There is NO evidence of Manchester posting "malicious material" to anyone, but there is plenty of evidence of you doing so. After all, did you not receive a two years' prison sentence for posting malicious material to people? And now you admit sending your malicious pamphlets to Manchester's wife, her mother, and others on the basis that they "could have been told about" you by Manchester.
As if anyone would be the least bit interested in hearing anything about you!
By your own admission, you mailed malicious material to people based solely of your own paranoia and on absolutely nothing else.
"There is NO evidence of Manchester posting "malicious material" to anyone, but there is plenty of evidence of you doing so. After all, did you not receive a two years' prison sentence for posting malicious material to people?2"
There is plenty of evidence, Sean. In 2000 you began postings reams of malicious material about myself on (what was then) Freeserve and I have over 120 A4 pages copied from it. Following complaints from various people, you were 'locked out' (as you yourself described it) and your site was closed down.
I did not . . . "receive a 2 year prison sentence for sending malicious material to people" Sean, as you well know.
I received a 2 year prison sentence for sending 'voodoo dolls' to two police detectives who had assaulted an associate of mine. Stop deliberately twisting the truth, Sean, just to try and make this 'fit' into your inane stories.
The booklets were only brought out in the first place to counter lies and misrepresentations you were making about myself on the Internet.
I have never denied sending copies of one or two of these booklets to your wife and mother-in-Law. Indeed the envelopes were written and signed in my own handwriting!
To say I have 'finally admitted it' is just yet another of your calculated distortions of the truth, Sean.
David Farrant
Manchester's website was temporarily disabled until he removed a page NAMING AND SHAMING PAEDOPHILES among the clergy.
It was a bunch of paedos who complained about the webpage and, let nobody forget, THEY ENLISTED YOUR HELP AND SUPPORT in getting the site disabled by having YOU send in a complaint of your own. As soon as the anti-paedophile material was removed the website was restored.
The man on whose behalf you sent two voodoo death dolls to police witnesses was a molester of young boys. The two detectives had arrested him for intefering with a young boy and when he told you about their interrogation you sent them each a death doll with a written threat. Your friend was later convicted of sexual assault on a minor.
You have stated that Manchester did not have a presence on the web until 2000, and that your "booklets were only brought out in the first place to counter lies and misrepresentations made about yourself on the Internet."
But you started producing your "booklets" ten years earlier than Manchester's arrival on the net.
You now boast:
"I have never denied sending copies of one or two of these booklets to [Manchester's] wife and mother-in-Law. Indeed the envelopes were written and signed in my own handwriting!"
And still you cannot grasp why you are such a despised figure by the overwhelming majority who discover you on the net?
"And still you cannot grasp why you are such a despised figure by the overwhelming majority who discover you on the net?"
The only person who 'despises' me on the Internet, Sean, is apparently yourself, just because I am in a position to tell the truth about all your lies and distortions.
The booklets were brought out to give people the true facts about all these, the firse one being isued in 2000.
The only 'vile' thing about these booklets, Sean, is when they have to refer to your own vile material to retract it.
If you don't want your malicious allegations retracted, then you shouldn't circulate these in the first place. Its as simple as that!
There were no booklets prior to 2000. There was only my book "Beyond the Highgate Vampire" published in 1992, then the magazine of the Highgate Vampire Society, "Suspended in Dusk" published in 1997.
The booklets were brought out to deal specifically with all the untrue claims you were circulating on the Internet and on your message boards - which you are still ding, and as you are doing here Sean.
Don't keep up the futile pretence that you are not really you, Sean. Everybody knows who you really are (even the Yorkshire Pudding although she would never admit it now having become become entrapped in her own deciept)outdespite your attempts to transfer your true identity onto other unsuspecting people.
David Farrant
"There was only my book "Beyond the Highgate Vampire" published in 1992, then the magazine of the Highgate Vampire Society, "Suspended in Dusk" published in 1997."
"Beyond the Highgate Vampire" is a pamphlet self-published by the Hunchback in 1991 which includes falsehood and stolen copyright material. Is Farrant now denying that this unpleasant and illegal pamphlet was not first released in 1991? Manchester, by Farrant's own admission, was not on the web until 2000!
"Suspended in Dusk" series of newsletters, tracts, call them what you will, was desbribed by independent observers, including at least one journalist, as the most malicious and libellous publication ever created. The degree of hatred in its pages was considered by some as deeply disturbing and pornographic.
Farrant (the Hunchback) cannot actually identify anything Manchester wrote about him which deserves such vilification and hysterical hatred.
YET MORE SENILE DEMENTIA
I quite clearly stated, Sean, that my book "Beyond the Highgate Vampire" was first released in 1991 and I pointed out that this was not connected with the booklets that I sent out in early 2000 (one of which was sent to your mother in Law, another to your wife).
As usuak you have become confused yet again Sean!
As to your remarks about The Highgate Cociety magazine, "Suspended in Dusk" 'being obscene, you really do sound asif you;ve completely 'flipped' now!
If you are referring to a cartoon sketch in there by Chrissie D. of you dressed up as a bishop and spanking your wife, I personally don't see that as 'obscene'! If I had done, I would not have allowed it to be included at the time.
Most peoples' reaction to that sketch is that it is just plain funny! And I agree!
Try and grow up a little Sean.
David Farrant
"I quite clearly stated that my book "Beyond the Highgate Vampire" was first released in 1991." Farrant October 25, 2009 4:46 PM
"There were no booklets prior to 2000. There was only my book "Beyond the Highgate Vampire" published in 1992." Farrant October 25, 2009 11:19 AM
"Suspended in Dusk" was regarded by many who saw it, including a journalist, as pornographically malicious and hateful. Not due to any childish cartoons, but due to the level of violent hatred and libellous misrepresentation. It is believed that even its editor saw how deeply unpleasant your vendetta had become and the sheer depths he was stooping to on your behalf, which is why he terminated the publication and severed all contact with yourself. That contact has never been restored.
Hi Carol ... you wrote: 'and, yeah, I was right about trystan swale's RI board---I AM "righteous indignation" in the flesh.
He couldn't handle it either nor could the girls--so we were banned.'
Just to clear this up once and for all. You were not banned because I 'couldn't handle it'.
Instead, the purpose of the interview with David was to hear his side of the Highgate story, particularly in regard to what he currently thinks was responsible. Neither the episode notes page nor our Facebook discussion thread were intended to become venues for the latest feud installment. Instead, they were and are for comments related to the interview.
You have also stated elsewhere that we would be 'intimidated' to debate Sean. This is not the case as he was invited to be a guest before we approached David. I once again extend that invitation but Sean is perfectly within his rights to decline.
My understanding of the matter, Tryatan, is that the main reason for his declining your interview on Righteous Indignition Radio is that he learned that you had, or intended to, been in conyact with myself.
So he contented himself instead with sending in screeds of his 'cut n' pasted' nonsense about myself. You read one of these to me on the programme which I accordingly answered.
I guess my point is, that his paranoia where I'm concerned is limited to these cowardly missives written under one or other of his fake aliases. But lets be absolutely clear: it was he, himself, who really wrote them. Just as he is doing the same thing here at the moment.
Talk about professing to be a Christain. The mind truly boggles!
Hope everything's well with you anyway.
David (Farrant)
Hi David - I have a stinking cold at present and have lost my voice! Apart from that I am okay, I hope you are fine too. Just a little bemused that the Facebook discussion at the centre of this thread is still rumbling on!
Sean actually opted to decline the interview before he was aware I was going to contact you. Let's just say that our skeptical approach was not his thing! It was after mentioning I would approach you as an alternative that the whole cut and past stuff developed. In the interest of fairness I advised him of when the episode would be released and have offered him the right to reply in form of an interview.
Anyhow, best go as I am being run ragged by a two year old taking advantage of my lurgy!
Trystan ...
you already explained all this in your email to me--what are you clarifying...and, is this really advantageous to your "career" being on such a psycho-insanity board where the main subject for 40 yrs has been a debate, no, a diabolical feud about whether or not a "vampire" truly rose at HighGate, or if one even existed....I don't let ANYONE of my professional acquaintances KNOW I come here--this is R & R; they would think I'm 2 lagers to the wind...and might pull away since so many of us go to each others links at the Patriot sites..I do have my own life outside my war games at Baldry's Cat...
daaaaaaaaaa-vid shhh you'll hear a still small voice behind you like a soft wind....listen to it...
Carol,
I have answered your questions where you've asked them. I really can't do anymore than that.
If you've missed my answers in this 'jumble of replies', that's really not my fault.
But in the meantime Carol, please just call me by my first name. Its 'David" - simple as that!
David (Farrant)
Hi Carol - I was just clarifying for David.
As for my career, my paid job is well away from the field of podcasting for which I receive and expect to make diddly squat! Given that hard evidence is lacking for either the ghost or vampire hypothesis, and so I don't believe either, I'm not too worried as to what the wider world thinks!
Despite what has been written about me elsewhere I just try to be fair. Sure, I'm friends with David on Facebook but I was friends with Sean until recently and only removed him after he threatened to get the podcast website removed. I have no axe to grind with either party which is why I am still very keen to get Sean onto the show!
"I was friends with Sean until recently and only removed him after he threatened to get the podcast website removed"
The smoking gun.
Innocent Sean who is oblivious to what is said about him online and doesn't care about the antics of Farrant.
Very interesting indeed.
Demented and sad, but interesting.
"I was friends with Sean until recently and only removed him after he threatened to get the podcast website removed."
Removed? Manchester did not post anything on your podcast forum or on anywhere else. Where is this "threat"? He did not threaten to get your podcast removed and I invite you to provide evidence to the contrary. What I know he would most probably have done is ask to have his name removed from you podcast, which, according to comments he has made on Facebook, you introduced when you were interviewing the Hunchback. The latter then had an invitation to misrepresent and libel Manchester. Something he could not wait to do. You claim that Manchester is the bad guy when you were naming him unnecessarily while interviewing his enemy on a podcast. Manchester was yet again being exploited and abused by those who try to paint him as the wrongdoer. It is his right not to be interviewed. It is also his right not to be defamed and abused.
to trystan: what you do on the internet--even for fun is available to anyone who wants to do deeper digging on you...there are employers who search out employees just to have something to hold over their head..people need to be very careful--what they say or do--even in jest can come back and follow and destroy careers; do a google search--you're very naive
I talked to Hogg about this once; I am well aware it can come back on me also--but I don't have as much to loose and I'm older; more than "employers" do this--its personal invasion of your online activities--universities have done this and students have not been accepted in schools or for jobs; a little hunting on some search engines will clear this up for ya--or try the deep web..YOU are connecting yourself with "vampirism"--think about it--the "world" does not have a good view-point here>>> and your "side" activities are always a larger-picture-view, a reflection of who you REALLY ARE
you are really naive sonny
David-
I want your hypothesis about your hair anomaly explained.
snapping my fingers---
I can't explain it Carol, its just that my hair has never gone grey.
If it ever did, I'd just leave it rather than put any chemical muck on my head.
Bonky started dying his hair in 1990 when what was left of his hair started to go grey. He tryed dying it blond at first and was photographed with it blond by the press.
I can send you photographs if you want (this was in 1991)?
David Farrant
"How would you know what Manchester did or didn't do?"
I know because:
1. I read Trystan Swale's podcast and related forums, including Swale's Facebook discussion group.
2. I read what Manchester himself had to say about it on the VRS Facebook discussion group.
"Bonky started dying his hair in 1990 when what was left of his hair started to go grey. He tryed dying it blond at first and was photographed with it blond by the press. I can send you photographs if you want."
Manchester has never dyed his hair at any time in his life. This has been be attested by those who have known him down the years, not least of all his wife. The Hunchback has levelled this accusation before (to take the heat off interest in his own hair) and it has been dealt with before.
The Hunchback's hair used to be a dirty sand colour. In the Nineties it occasionally appeared deep orange and at other times brown. This continued into the new century. Now it has become even darker, a very dark brown, but if you look at his beard (he often appears unshaven on videos and in pictures) and where his sideboards meet his hair, you will observe that he is grey or even white.
I would invite the Hunchback to send photographs of Manchester to Carol who I hope will make them available to Manchester with whom she is friends on Facebook. I doubt, however, that this will happen.
Farrant is all bluff and no substance.
Carol, I get the impression you think I am younger than I am! I describe myself as a folklorist and tales of vampires, ghosts and the like fall under this category. If I was to tell people they could kill vampires by staking them then I could understand an employer's concern.
Anonymous, it is not a breach of civil or criminal law to introduce someone's name into a broadcast when they have commented on the subject at hand in print, on radio and tv. If anyone did have a case for defamation of character from that interview it was David when I repeated the accusation (sent to me by Facebook message) that he is a 'fraudster'.
Incidentally Anonymous, I do not feel that Sean is the bad guy or was portrayed as such. I am interested in evidence as a skeptic but also the stories of Sean and David.
The stories are fascinating and so very different. I think it would be great if BSM reconsidered and was given the opportunity to address what he sees as holes in David's interview.
I would also get chance to tell BSM about the time I met the Archbishop of Canterbury.
I can't quite decide whether Swale is extremely naive or just plain stupid.
The Bishop made absolutely clear to Swale involving Farrant would result in the opportunity to talk to him permanently null and void.
Swale wants the Bishop to "address what he sees as holes in David's interview" as if this is something of necessity. Can't Swale see the holes for himself? Everyone else, bar a couple of Farrant's dupes posting on this blog, certainly can. The Bishop's policy is to deny Farrant the oxygen of publicity.
Note, that is the Bishop's policy, not necessarily mine or others.
Post a Comment