In an effort to allay rumours that he is merely "an empty shell possessed by demons", ex-vampire hunter David Farrant has agreed to allow representatives of Bishop Bonkers to be present during a series of scientific tests conducted at his Muswell Hill flat designed to determine if he is actually infested with demons. The test protocols will be modeled on 9 "indications of possession" contained in "Testing Demonic Possession" by Dr. James C. Patterson II, MEDD, PhD...1. Trance states with no recollection of them. - David will be asked to name the pub he was in last night, who bought him drinks, and how many pints he consumed.
2. Vocalizations of a derogatory, blasphemous, and insulting nature in voices different from the subject's. - David will be shown a copy of "The Highgate Vampire" and asked his opinion of the author. His response will be tape recorded and analysed for vocal anomalies.
3. Use of unusual languages previously unknown to the subject. - David will be asked to respond to questions of a personal nature using an authentic Yorkshire dialect.
4. Psychic knowledge of events, places, and actions of others outside the possible realm of the subject's awareness. - David will be asked to predict whether a local shop is out of his brand of cheap cigarettes.
5. Large temperature changes. - A beef steak wrapped in silver foil will be affixed to David's chest with sello tape. At the end of 30 minutes, volunteers will eat the steak and report whether it is raw, medium, or well done.
6. Movement of objects on bookshelves by invisible force. - Copies of "From Satan to Christ" and "Dark Secrets" will be placed side by side on a tall bookshelf and any movement observed by video camera recording.
7. Unusual strength during the exorcism. - David's ability to lift glasses of gin of varying fullness and weight from table height to mouth height will be tested.
8. Strong reaction to holy water. - David will don a pair of cheese cloth knickers soaked in Holy Water. Any discomfort (or arousal) will be noted.
9. Levitation. - An attractive female volunteer of legal age will be positioned on David's lap. For control purposes, both subjects will be nude. Any anomalous up or down movement will be noted.
78 comments:
will the gay bishop have to undertake such a test?
it wouldnt be the first time hes said "get thee behind me satan" to another man.
WHAT ABOUT 'IM'?!
You know Cat, Craig has a point there.
What about testing 'im' as well? After all, he has far many more symptoms of 'demonic possession' than I have!
I mean, that's only fair!
David Farrant
Well you KNOW Bonky won't take any "test for demonic possession." Not going to happen.
I'm wondering if they are goading you to face off with Bonky so they can somehow get you charged with a crime and sent to jail. There just isn't any legitimate reason for Bonky to agree to see you. Show up on his doorstep and maybe you're suddenly photographed "in the act of harassment" with three witnesses ready to testify they saw you make threats...
hit the nail on the head there mate
Alternately, they could bottle him on the head and stuff him into a sack.
"Farrant? Mising? No Inspector, I haven't seen him."
Thanks Cat,
You always have this wonderful habit of allaying peoples' fears in potentially volitile situations!
But fear not! I am more than accustomed to the 'bonky one's' scheming - after all, he has been doing this for years. Its usually for self-publicity purposes. Getting me charged with 'harassment' is the same thing really: that could attract publicity which he would then only use to further to his own ends.
So, don't worry, I have no intention of falling into that obvious trap.
If he wants to meet me, it would have to be in the open, in front of witnesses, as opposed to some 'secret meeting' in his bungalow!
But believe me this will never happen. He could never muster the courage to face me in person under such circumstances!
David Farrant
"will the gay bishop have to undertake such a test?"
Who is that, Craig Adams? The one Farrant visits in Muswell Hill who has also visited Farrant at his hovel?
"What about testing 'im' as well?"
"As well?" - Does that mean Farrant agrees to be tested?
"Well you KNOW Bonky won't take any test for demonic possession. Not going to happen."
How do you KNOW that? You constantly make assumed statements about and on behalf of Manchester without him EVER being consulted. Sort of sums up your entire strategy of holding a daily kangaroo court on this blog, doesn't it? But you only do so for as long as you remain totally anonymous. The moment you are rumbled you will disappear into the woodwork like all the rest.
"Its usually for self-publicity purposes."
This from the arch-publicity-seeker Farrant who sold his soul for a few inches of newspaper print and has sacrificed his life on the altar of manufactured stories in the press. Farrant's only claim to fame is that he is a mega publicity junkie. There is no evidence of Manchester doing anything for purely publicity purposes. There is ONLY evidence of Farrant doing EVERTHING for publicity.
"If he wants to meet me, it would have to be in the open, in front of witnesses, as opposed to some 'secret meeting' in his bungalow!"
Funny how a little wizened hunchback living in a tiny bedsit claims year in and year out that Manchester resides in a bungalow. Manchester does not live in a bungalow. He lives in a five/six bedroom Edwardian house which I believe includes a small chapel. But Farrant can only spew forth lies. He is not capable of telling the truth.
Okay, Farrant. Arrange your confrontation with Manchester in the open with witnesses, but on neutral territory. Why not Glastonbury? Or somewhere equally removed from tabloid hacks?
By the way, I am not offereing to arrange anything. This is for Farrant to do. He knows how to contact Manchester. Do it. Arrange it.
"He could never muster the courage to face me in person under such circumstances!"
In the past, Manchester HAS arranged to meet Farrant in the open with witnesses, starting with the Hampstead Heath challenge in 1973, BUT FARRANT NEVER ONCE TURNED UP TO ANY OF THEM! Once the pre-event press coverage had been achieved, Farrant always broke his word.
Farrant couldn't muster the courage to answer his own front door and has a "secret code" number of rings on the doorbell to his house of many bedsits. So much in fear is he of finding someone like Manchester on his doorstep!
"Farrant couldn't muster the courage to answer his own front door and has a "secret code" number of rings on the doorbell to his house of many bedsits. So much in fear is he of finding someone like Manchester on his doorstep!"
Not so! As far back as a year ago, I invited Bonky to my flat. I suggested his wife drive him up from Bournmouth and I would see them both. I would only ask Patsy (the Society Treasurer) to be here.
That offer still
stands.
Lets remember I have met Bonky alone on countless occasions: most recently between 1976 and 1986. And I have all the tapes to prove it.
You can forget all the melodramatics such as me trapsing all the way to Glastonbury with an injured back, if wants to see me face to face, he can come to my flat (note: flat, not bedsit as Bonky so persistently used to lie about it).
So there you are: I've put it in writing again. Let him come here with his wife who can also act as a witness.
Well,Bonky? How about it?
David Farrant
PS This is still a genuine invitation but as you didn't accept the first time I expct you will find some other excuse.
"I invited Bonky to my flat."
How exactly did you go about inviting him? Did you send him an email? Did you write to him? How was Manchester invited?
The fact is, Farrant, that Manchester has been inviting you to meet with him in private for years and you have never once accepted any of these invitations.
Now you say you have invited him after ignoring all his inviations, but I daresay he is not even aware of your invitation and, truth be told, you wouldn't want him to be!
The bottom line, Farrant is that you are a liar. You have had countless opportunities to meet with Manchester and have avoided accepting them all.
"The bottom line, Farrant is that you are a liar. You have had countless opportunities to meet with Manchester and have avoided accepting them all"
The only 'invitations Bonky ever made to me were through newspapers when he offerred to 'exorcise' me as part of yet another of his publicity stunts. Naturally I refgsed such invitations for this reason.
My initial invitation to Bonky and his wife to come here was a year ago in October; and yes he knew about it but conveniently ignored it.
I am not a liar; if anything I tell the truth, which tends to upset some people.
So, I am repeating the invitation once again here. IF he responds and I retract this in any way, THEN you would have cause to call me a 'liar'. But not until.
David Farrant
You did not "refuse", Farrant, as recounted in ALL the newspapers at the time that you ACCEPTED the challenge. You were quoted extensively in the press as having accepted the challenge to meet Manchester in the open before witnesses. When the day came you FAILED to turn up, having already achieved the publicity you craved.
Once again, how did Manchester receive the invitation you claim you made? You are avoiding giving a straight answer because you made no such invitation, not to Manchester at least.
Manchester has been inviting you for ages to meet him. You were reminded of this recently on this very blog. YOU HAVE AVOIDED ACCEPTING THIS INVITATION and are now trying to turn it around by claiming to invite him to your hovel.
And what do you mean you are "repeating" your invitation? WHEN DID HE EVER RECEIVE AN INVITATION FROM YOU? Answer this question.
You are a liar, Farrant. You have never told the truth in your life. Everyone knows this, journalists and lawyers have stated it publicly. It has been the verdict of juries. You are a born liar!
If you are referring to the 'occult duel' back in 1973 (probably before you were even born!) I did not turn up because Bonky had turned the whole thing into a 'publicity circus' - and I was quoted in the Press as saying just that.
The invitation last year ws made on an extremely hostile Blog (against myself) which Bonky was using to 'attack' myself - talking about himself as a '3rd party messenger' as usual. I believe it could have been Peroxide's Blog but I can't be sure. Whatever, the whole thing was copied before it was taken down so it doesn't really matter. The evidence exists.
If Bonky is now maintaing that he didn't know about this invitation then he is the one that is lying.
Anyway, that's really academic. I have repeated the invitation here, and that is all that really matters.
Now, as you appear to be a supporter og Bonky's, I invite you to pass on my current invitation to him, then confirm up here that you have done so.
Then will shall see you's lying - rather you will see. And people here will be able to see if he accepts my invitation or not.
David Farrant
"The invitation last year ws made on an extremely hostile Blog (against myself) which Bonky was using to 'attack' myself."
Provide the link to that blog.
Though you now say it wasn't Manchester but someone you try to convince people is him. How is that an invitation? Are you really that incapable of sending an invite from YOU to HIM in private?
You now admit you were invited in 1973 to an OPEN meeting before WITNESSES and FAILED to appear. The usual excuses follow why you broke your word. The truth is you have had from 1973 until now to meet Manchester's challenge and still you haven't managed it.
Why do you and Craig Adams keep going on about Peroxide? I have never heard of Peroxide and I daresay nobody else has either. Is this just another evasion tactic? Try and stay in the present.
"If Bonky is now maintaing that he didn't know about this invitation then he is the one that is lying."
And your evidence for making that unsupported claim is what?
"I have repeated the invitation here, and that is all that really matters."
No it isn't. Manchester is unlikely to see the rubbish on here. HE HAS ALREADY INVITED YOU AND YOU HAVE ALREADY IGNORED HIS INVITATION. You cannot now turn it around to make it APPEAR as if you have invited him and he is ignoring you.
I do not pass messages on for either side. If you want to accept Manchester's invitation or have something else to say to him YOU MUST CONTACT HIM YOURSELF. If you are not prepared to do that and REFUSE to face him in person, then STOP libelling him every day of your life. It's really that simple.
"Farrant Will Take Demonic Possession Test", but will Farrant ever take a lie detector test?
John Baldry's Cat says:
October 18, 2009 at 4:52 pm
"David, what’s that photo from? Did you make a film in the 1960s?"
David Farrant says:
October 18, 2009 at 5:29 pm
"That film was made in 1972, Cat, not the 1960’s. It was made by a group of students from the Hatfield Polytechnic and based on events in June 1971 when we held a second ceremony in Highgate Cemetery which was not interupted by the police."
http://davidfarrant.org/TheHumanTouch/?p=622
Yet another Farrant falsehood.
The picture is one of a sequence of similar photographs taken by the TitBits magazine photographer for an article written by Kit Miller which asked "Do You Believe in Vampires?"
Farrant didn't get paid for the interview or for posing for the pictures, some of which appeared in TitBits, but he was given a set of black and white prints. This is one of them.
There was an amateur film made by a group of students. The picture Baldry's Cat enquires about is totally unrelated to that 8mm film which Farrant went on to sell illegally from his PO Box address. He did not have permission to sell video copies.
AND THERE CAME A GIANT SPIDER . . .
Firstly "Anonymous", you ask me for a link to a Blog that I previously told you was taken down. I do have a copy of this complete Blog but I'm not prepared to go dredging through it all just to prove something to you that Bonky already knows about. He might have told you he doesn't, but if you're so guillible as to believe that . . . well, you'll just have to remain that gullible!
I told you I had a copy of this sent invitation last yoar (and I do. If you don't believe me, then don't believe me! That's really only your problem.
As to this:
"If you are not prepared to do that and REFUSE to face him in person, then STOP libelling him every day of your life. It's really that simple"
You seem to have a funny concept of what libel is and what it is not.
Bonky cut and pastes malicious material all about myself day in day out, then acts indignant or surprised when people ask me about it. Answering questions is not necessarily libellous.
For example, if I am asked whether Bonky really 'staked a vampire' (as he described} and then went on to stake its female disciple after she had changed into a giant spider (again as he describes) and I reply that I don't believe it and the whole thing is just pure fiction, that is just answering a question to something that he himself put in the public domain. That is not 'libelling' anyone. That is just answering a question.
I think you have a lot to learn about the laws of libel, Sweetheart!
Anyway, I am sure you must have better things to do than arguing about all Bonky's fantasies here. Or your own come to that!
David Farrant
"but if you're so guillible as to believe that . . . well, you'll just have to remain that gullible!"
When I have asked for a link I noticed that you yourself did not claim it was Manchester but someone you would have people believe is Manchester. There is a difference. You don't seem to recognise it, so wrapped up in your hate campaign are you.
Now you are asking me to be gullible enough to believe you.
"You seem to have a funny concept of what libel is and what it is not."
Libel is something damaging alleged about someone else without proof or supporting evidence which would stand up in court. That is my concept of libel. How does it differ from anyone else's?
"Bonky cut and pastes malicious material all about myself day in day out."
Provide proof or evidence of this allegation. We know you cut and paste malicious material about Manchester because IT IS ALL OVER THE INTERNET.
"For example, if I am asked whether Bonky really 'staked a vampire' (as he described} ....etc etc etc.... I reply that I don't believe it and the whole thing is just pure fiction, that is just answering a question to something that he himself put in the public domain. That is not 'libelling' anyone."
Obviously that isn't libel and you know full well I would not include examples like that as being libellous.
Respecting someone else's beliefs is something you don't seem to understand. Nobody is asking you to believe what Manchester believes. What has his belief in the existence of vampires got to do with you? The fact that you don't believe in vampires is your right and is obviously not libellous.
Libel is claiming that someone had sex with an under age girl in an ice cream van. That is one of a great many examples I could cite. Manchester did not have sex with an under age girl and has never been in an ice cream van in his life, as corrobrated by him a long time back when this LIBEL from you first appeared. You have been unable to prove this allegation or provide even the slightest supporting evidence. You are therefore guilty of libel. Multiply this offence by one thousand similar offences over forty years and we are getting close to the degree of libel you are guilty of committing.
I think you have a lot to learn about the laws of libel, Farrant.
You also have a lot to learn about discussing things. Your choice of words is offensive and patronising.
Well thank you my dear, you have picked a perfect example. This . . .
"Respecting someone else's beliefs is something you don't seem to understand. Nobody is asking you to believe what Manchester believes. What has his belief in the existence of vampires got to do with you? The fact that you don't believe in vampires is your right and is obviously not libellous".
The difference is that Bonky swamps people with cut and pasted material trying to convince people that I DO believe in vampires.
He continually repeats a statement as 'evidence' that was read out in Court to the effect that I intended to open coffins and stake a vampire. I proved in Court that this statement was untrue and that the police were lying and this was the main reason I was acquitted.
Bonky desperately tries to twist this by saying I was only acquitted 'on a technicality'. Yet another lie when this statement formed the whole substance of that charge. This is in fact is itself libellous, as he is in effect trying to convince the public that I was really guilty on a charge on which I was really acquitted.
Look Sweetheart. If Bonky wants to believe in 'vampires' and 'giant spiders', I really don't care. If you are niave enough to support him in such a belief; well, I don't care either. That's really your problem.
But I DO care when Bonky attempts to deliberately misinterpret this and project such ridiculous nonsense onto myself.
And that's just one small example of how he tries to distort the truth.
His statement that I 'dye my hair' is just another example. And his 'doctoring photographs' of myself to try and prove this false point is just another example of the same thing.
Depicting myself with false 'vampire fangs' on a stolen from the television and distributing this photograph on the Internet on his message Boards is yet another example.
Remember, all this perverse behaviour was uncalled for and unprovoked.
Finally, the person posting on Peroxide's Blog was really Bonky himself. I said it to his face at the time, and I say it again here.
If you are really so niave that you can't see this; then you are the one with a serious problem, not myself!
David Farrant
"The difference is that Bonky swamps people with cut and pasted material trying to convince people that I DO believe in vampires."
I find it interesting that you never provide examples. This is probably because it is not Manchester but someone else you are talking about. I have found no example of Manchester or those who belong to his Society claiming you actually believe in vampires. What they are all saying is that you CLAIMED to believe in vampires for the sake of publicity and later denied claiming to believe in them. This is borne by your quoted statements in the Hampstead and Highgate Express, March 6th, 1970, where you clearly support the vampire theory put forward by the British Occult Society earlier in the same newspaper. Manchester and his Society members are quick to remind people that they feel your support for the vampire theory in 1970, along with your own claims of seeing some kind of apparition, are disingenuous and that you really believed in none of it, a claim supported by a tape recording of you from forty years ago conspiring with Anthony Hill to manufacture a ghost story hoax in the press.
"Bonky desperately tries to say I was only acquitted 'on a technicality'. Yet another lie when this statement formed the whole substance of that charge. This is in fact is itself libellous, as he is in effect trying to convince the public that I was really guilty on a charge on which I was really acquitted."
I have read the press coverage of the charge when you appeared at Clerkenwell Court in August 1970. You were ONLY charged with being in an enclosed area for an unlawful purpose and were acquitted of that charge because Highgate Cemetery is obviously not an enclosed area regardless of what purpose your entry intended to accomplish. What is libellous about Manchester or anyone else observing how that technicality - because it is only a technicality - allowed you to be acquitted? You were not charged with anything else.
"If Bonky wants to believe in 'vampires' and 'giant spiders', I really don't care. ..... But I DO care when Bonky attempts to deliberately misinterpret this and project such ridiculous nonsense onto myself."
No example provided yet again which is convenient for you but unacceptable to anyone reading this. Nowhere have I found Manchester projecting his beliefs onto you. Quite the opposite. He is of the opinion that you do NOT believe in supernatural phenomena such as vampires and only ever said you did in 1970 to attract attention to yourself in the media.
"His statement that I 'dye my hair' is just another example."
I can find no statement made by Manchester that you dye your hair. I found allegations from an American named Carol and someone else called Demonologist who Anthony Hogg says without any real proof is Dennis. Manchester has not made this allegation. Why would he even be interested in whether you dye your hair? Yet you repeatedly publish statements about Manchester's hair with the claim that it is white and falling out. You also repeatedly describe him as fat. I have just been looking at full length pictures of him taken this month on one of his sites and he is not at all fat and certainly not bald, as you claim. He just isn't anorexic-looking as some have accused you of being. Compared to you he is the Incredible Hulk, but so are most people! Don't you think others seeing a sixty-four year old man constantly making these infantile comments reduces you to a joke? Just as your daily kindergarten references to someone you disagree with as "Bonky" exposes you as a silly individual who nobody can possibly take seriously?
"Depicting myself with false 'vampire fangs' on a stolen from the television and distributing this photograph on the Internet on his message Boards is yet another example."
Where is the link or links? You are exhibiting the kind of paranioa attributed to you by others. It is quite obvious you accuse Manchester of all the ills of the world. Where is your evidence that he distributed images of you with vampire fangs?
This constant blaming of Manchester for everything that happens when OTHERS question or ridicule you is the source of your problem. You find it convenient and easy to simply blame one person and make that person a scapegoat for everything that happens which meets with your disapproval.
"If you are really so niave that you can't see this; then you are the one with a serious problem, not myself!"
This is a classic mirror projection tactic used by those in denial. You make the person you are talking to the one with the problem when it is obvious to the world you have the problem. You back none of your statements and claims with evidence or proof. You expect your word to be enough. And anyone who doesn't accept you at your word is accused of being gullible when the opposite is true. Remember, your attitude and behaviour has led to your arrests, convictions and imprisonment in the past. You are an old man behaving like a very silly and immature boy.
WE ALL KNOW . . .
"You expect your word to be enough. And anyone who doesn't accept you at your word is accused of being gullible when the opposite is true"
You see, you are doing exactly the same thing again Sean: cutting and pasting material written by yourself - and yourself only - then writing about yourself in the 3rd person. The evidence is overwhelming Sean, ad has been copied by hundreds of people (cut and pasted lies virtually identical to your last two posts here for example).
The picture of me with fake vampire fangs and your statements about me 'dying' my hair both appeared on your own message Boards, Sean, if that is not proof enough.
Nearly all of this 'cut and pasted' material appears on your own Message Boards, Sean as hardly anybody else will entertain it. Where you have persisted in pasting it on other Boards or Forums, you have just ended up being banned (as you were recently on Righteous Indignation Radio).
You use this fake tactic all the time, Sean. That is make all these obsessive allegations about myself and my central part in the Highgate case, then try and pretend that its not really yourself making them.
Bulldust. It is!
When the Yorkshire Pudding first started your "Cross and the Stake" Board for you in 2002 you instructed her not to post anything on it but to leave it to you. That person later sent me a letter complaining how she had been treated after she had founded and was moderating that message Board for you. I still have that letter (indeed others with a similar content as well).
In one email to this person you told her that it was "absolutely imperative that nobody knows that its really me". That is, you were telling her not to divulge the fact that it was really posting on the "Cross and the Stke" message Board under various aliases.
That person gave me your email, and I am glad to say I have now found it once again.
Well, it was not really necessary to put that in writing Sean (except perhaps for her benefit).
WE ALL KNOW ITS REALLY YOU!
David Farrant
I see you are resorting to your familiar diversion tactic when in a tight corner, Farrant .........
"The picture of me with fake vampire fangs and your statements about me 'dying' my hair both appeared on your own message Boards"
THEN PROVIDE LINKS BECAUSE I CANNOT FIND ANY SUCH STATEMENTS MADE BY MANCHESTER.
"Where you have persisted in pasting it on other Boards or Forums, you have just ended up being banned (as you were recently on Righteous Indignation Radio)."
EVIDENCE? WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE, FARRANT? MANCHESTER HAS NOT BEEN "BANNED" ON RIGHTEOUS INDIGNATION. HE HAS NOT WANTED ANYTHING TO DO WITH IT, AS STATED BY HIM ON THE FACEBOOK VRS DISCUSSON BOARD. TRYSTAN SWALE, INCIDENTALLY, WILL CONFIRM THAT MANCHESTER HAS NOT BEEN BANNED.
"That is make all these obsessive allegations about myself and my central part in the Highgate case."
WHAT "OBSESSIVE ALLEGATIONS" ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT, FARRANT? YOU PLAYED NO PART IN THE HIGHGATE CASE EXCEPT, LIKE SOME OTHERS, TO MANUFACTURE PUBLICITY STUNTS. YOURS LED TO YOUR IMPRISONMENT WHEN YOU TOOK THINGS TOO FAR AND WENT TO UNACCEPTABLE EXTREMES.
"In one email to this person you told her that it was absolutely imperative that nobody knows that its really me."
PUTTING ASIDE YOUR OBSESSION WITH MANCHESTER AND YOUR CUSTOMARY DIVERSION TACTIC, YOU ARE INVITED TO REPRODUCE THAT NON-EXISTENT EMAIL EXACTLY AS IT APPEARED WITH HTML CODE, HEADERS AND FOOTERS.
"That person gave me [MANCHESTER'S] email, and I am glad to say I have now found it once again."
IF THAT IS THE CASE, STOP SPENDING EVERY DAY OF YOUR EMPTY LIFE WAFFLING, STAMMERING AND STUTTERING UNSUBSTANTIATED GARBAGE ABOUT A MAN YOU DARE NOT FACE AND CONTACT THAT MAN IN PRIVATE TO IRON OUT YOUR DIFFERENCES INSTEAD OF CLUTTERING UP OTHER PEOPLE'S BLOGS AND FILLING YOUR OWN WITH STREAMS OF INFANTILE ABUSE. HAVE THE GUTS TO COME FACE TO FACE WITH YOUR NEMESIS. THOUGH I PERSONALLY DOUBT IT WILL EVER HAPPEN.
INVITATION
"HAVE THE GUTS TO COME FACE TO FACE WITH YOUR NEMESIS. THOUGH I PERSONALLY DOUBT IT WILL EVER HAPPEN"
I see you have conveniently 'twisted' that again, Sean. It was the Fortean Times who described myself as being YOUR nenesis! Still, you never really were one for originality!
Now, I have made you a public invitation: I am prepared to meet yourself and your wife at my flat (in private) at a time to be arranged. I would only have Patsy with me.
Well? Stop all the evasion tactics. Here is the invitation again so that everyone can see.
Over to you Sean,
David Farrant
PUTTING ASIDE YOUR OBSESSION WITH MANCHESTER AND YOUR CUSTOMARY DIVERSION TACTIC, YOU ARE INVITED TO REPRODUCE THAT NON-EXISTENT EMAIL EXACTLY AS IT APPEARED WITH HTML CODE, HEADERS AND FOOTERS.
I do not have to produce anything for you Sean. Suffice to say, that I have several emails given to me by the Yorkshire Pudding detailing your activities. I also have dozens of signed letters from her to the same effect. You are not portrayed in a very good light - and that's putting it mildly!
David Farrant
FOR CAROL
Carol asked me seriously if I believed in exorcism and if it ‘worked’ – or something like that.
First Carol, sorry for the delay but I have had a lot of ‘bonky nonsense’ on here. – all stuff really irrelevant to anything but none-the-less demanding an answer.
To your question:
No, I do not believe that exorcism ‘works’ simply because I do not accept the existence of the devil, neither in ‘evil spirits’ as such.
I have said on endless occasions before the only ‘devil’ there is (which includes ‘evil spirits’), exists only as a state of negative consciousness within the human mind. This applies to all the horrendous evil in the world as well.
I accept the existence of a Divine Life Force (indeed, none of us would be here if it wasn’t for that.) but it is not possible to have anything opposed to that Life Force in any ‘supernatural sense’. (Which the ‘devil’ or ‘evil spirits’ are supposed to be).
Of course, on the human scene, there are countless things opposed to this true Life Force – or Divine Principle – I don’t think anybody in their right mind could deny that! We only have to look around us or read the newspapers to see that!
But all evil activity either exists – or is caused by – this human mind. There is no ‘horned devil’ orchestrating it I can assure you.
Therefore, the only effect ‘exorcism’ can possibly have is to affect the human state of consciousness – none other than that.
There is no devil, or ‘evil spirits’ or ‘demons’. All are projections of the human state of consciousness.
David Farrant
"Stop all the evasion tactics. Here is the invitation again so that everyone can see."
You say you have Manchester's email address. You also know how to contact him via his blog. Yet you choose to make a statement on an anti-Manchester blog run by someone who supports you over Manchester.
Why can't you contact Manchester in private?
The fact is that Manchester has already extended an invitation to you, as chronicled on this and Anthony Hogg's blog. You refused to accept his standing invitation despite your request being met.
Now you are resorting to evasion tactics by claiming I am Manchester. Pleeeeeeeeese!
Nice try but the public can see right through it, Farrant.
Manchester has ALREADY established the scenario for a face to face. You made conditions which were agreed. This was recorded on here on on Hogg's board. Everyone waited for something to happen. Nothing did. You fell silent, hoping that it would be forgotten. Then, surprise surprise, you turned the thing around as if Manchester had never offered to face you in the first place.
You are not serious, Farrant. You are not a serious person on any level. You revel in publishing personal abuse about someone you are obviously obsessed with and yet your own life is a tragic waste where the pursuit of mindless and manufactured publicity has taken you to the edge of the abyss. No wonder so many people feel sorry for you, but I feel no pity at all. You disgust me!
"[Manchester] is not portrayed in a very good light - and that's putting it mildly!"
Well, of course not, Farrant. Catherine Fearnley was your GIRLFRIEND at the time. She did virtually ALL your dirty work on the net. You got her to make all manner of bogus complaints against Manchester, being careful not to make them yourself. But the bottom line, Farrant, is SHE SAW THROUGH YOU IN THE END and clearly regrets ever meeting you. She believes you are the most evil individual she has ever come into contact with. She is not alone in that view. You falsely claim she is now in league with Manchester when they have no association outside sharing the same Catholic persuasion.
Here yougo again, pretending not to be yourself, Sean.
If that's not evasion, I don't know what is.
YOU are the one accusing me of not 'daring' to face you. I am really not interested in Anthony Hogg's manipulative tactics.
So I am now address you directly. As a matter of fact, I don't have your email, neither do I want it.
YOU are the one who has been making all these allegations of 'cowardice'.
So now, I am asking you publicaly to contact me if you want a meeting.
You have my phone number and email (at least one of them)so contact me and I will meet you with Patsy and you can bring your wife. Well you don't have to bring your wife but as you don't drive, it might be otherwise be difficult to get here.
No evasion. No bluffing. This invitation still stands.
But don't get back to me here with more waffle using some 'anonymous tag'. Contact me directly.
David Farrant
i had intended to give all this stuff a miss after the stupidity and nastiness i encountered, however i must comment brifly on this ludicrous idea that keeps being promoted,that catherine was a helpless female made to do this that and the other by evil men--catherine is a grown woman and made her own decisions without anyone 'making' her do anything and following her fall out with david i cant believe she then went wingeing off to manchester and tried to wriggle out of the actions she took against him of her own accord--but it seems she did, so this must have been an attempt to get back into his camp--what else?
HOW WOULD YOU KNOW SEAN?
You said:
"You falsely claim she is now in league with Manchester when they have no association outside sharing the same Catholic persuasion."
Now that really is a giantic slip, Sean. Because if you were not in contact with Catherine, how could you possibly know what she's feeling?
If she now thinks I am the most evil person she'd ever met (as you just stated) it could have only been because you told her that.
More fool her if she believed you. Still, she never did have much in the 'brains department'!
David Farrant
Barbara Green's attempt to distort what others have said follows a familiar pattern. Like Farrant, she compulsively wants the last word on just about everything even though none of it concerns her.
Catherine Fearnley was a free agent who allowed herself to be misled by Farrant for a period of time. She spent three years as Farrant's girlfriend and therefore has a unique insight into this man's deceitful and manipulative ways. She now regrets having allowed herself to be used in this way. She had already taken steps to join the Catholic Church BEFORE leaving Farrant. He was against her becoming a Catholic, according to statements she has made. She did not leave Farrant to support someone else. She left Farrant because he is anti-Christian and she was in the process of becoming a Christian. She also left him because the penny eventually dropped and she realised how she was being used to do his dirty work. He uses anyone he can find to do his dirty work, male and female alike. It is currently a male who does his dirty work.
catherine was not 'misled' by anyone--unless it was manchester if she has to continually absolve herself of responsibility--david did not 'get her' to do his dirty work, she did it because it suited her at the time-- she enjoyed it! why did she go to london every other week if she thought david was so 'evil'?was she brainwashed or braindead by davids mesmeric powers?what 'evil things' did he do and why did she stay with him if he was up to evil tricks---you are doing nothing for catherine's image by portraying her as a mindless ninny?
if he was doing evil things and she knew theywere evil it was up to her to terminate the relationship but the only person she considered evil was manchester and that is why she sought a legal injunction against him---did she do that in her sleep also?
barbara
YOU KEEP SLIPPING OVER SEAN
"He was against her becoming a Catholic, according to statements she has made."
How could you possibly know what statements she made Sean - unless she told you herself.
IF she did tell you that, then Catherine is now lying.
I was NOT against her becoming a Catholic and did nothing to dissuade her to the contary. Barbara at least can confirm that.
Once when Catherine visited here, I located the Catholic Church in Muswell Hill, and even gave her directions on how to get there.
On another occasion, Catherine bought with her a framed picture of her Confirmation as a present which I put up on the shelf. Hardly the actions of anybody if there was a conflict between them about their respective faiths.
Try again Sean!
David Farrant
David Farrant says:
October 18, 2009 at 5:29 pm
"That film was made in 1972, Cat, not the 1960’s. It was made by a group of students from the Hatfield Polytechnic "
John Baldry's Cat says:
October 23, 2009 at 8:20 pm
"I heard say that that still photo was published in TitBits. Who was the photographer? Who was the girl? In the photo it looks like you are pretending to chase her. What’s so supernatural about that?"
David Farrant says:
October 24, 2009 at 12:20 pm
"Tit Bits did not send their own photographer but commissioed this film agency whose photographs were also used in the 1972 student film ....... Some confusion seems to have arisen between this film and another student film I made 10 years later in 1982. This was also filmed in Highgate Cemetery – or the basic ‘vampire location’ shots were."
TitBits used a photo (not "film") agency as do most magazines when they do feature articles. The pictures of Farrant chasing a girl (and I know her name even if he doesn't remember it) have absolutely nothing to do with a film made by students. They were used exclusively by TitBits magazine and do not relate to any film.
The Hatfield Polytechnic students made an amatuer film of Farrant in his Muswell Hill bedsit and in Highgate Woods. Farrant duped his local newspaper into believing the students' project was a major documentary film due for mainstream release.
A misleading article published on 16 September 1982 led to the principal lecturer in film, Joost Hunningher, having a retraction published in the Barnet Advertsier where journalist Simon O'Neill had written a fraudulent and significantly misleading article based on what was told to him by Farrant who claimed the students' film was actually a feature length documentary film to be titled "The Highgate Vampire" and had a phtograph of himself and Satanist Jean-Paul Bourre published in the same newspaper to suggest they were both "searching for the lair of the vampire" (actual words from the caption to Farrant's picture).
Hatfield Polytechnic were furious about the deception exploiting "a modest 1st Year exercise of a portrait of David Farrant" on 8mm film. The film portrait lasted ten minutes! Nothing Farrant had told the newspaper was true, just as nothing he is claiming now about the TitBits pictures is true.
Many years later, Farrant illegally sold video copies of the ten minutes' students' film for £7.99 plus 50p postage each and advertised them in Kev Demant's "Suspended in Dusk" journal. Farrant's illegal advertisement appears on page 7 of issue six.
"How could you possibly know what statements she made?"
They have been published on blogs and on social network sites.
She has actually described you, Farrant, as an antichrist.
I would agree with that description.
You are a liar of the first order just as the Devil is the father of lies.
and i should add it was my idea to go to the rc church and catherine would probably never have done it otherwise--however i did not 'make' her become a catholic any more than david 'made' her do?????'evil' things!!!!--read that in translation friend of david equals enemy of manchester and you becoming automatically 'evil'!
catherine was a 36 year old woman not a 16 year old schoolgirl, it is cowardly and dishonest to 'blame' others for your mistakes and also makes you look pretty simple,and i dont think the fall out with david was actually about his 'evil' ways--it was something much more human--jealousy.oh and another interest round the corner!no harm done if catherine hadnt gone rushing off--as it appears--in sackcloth and ashes to manchester saying she was an innocent young maiden misled!
barbara
You are confused yet again, Sean. You are talking about the film made in 1982, not the one Cat asked about which was made 10 years earlier in 1972 in Highgate Cemetery.
You do get so confused about things Sean!
David Farrant
Hi - Trystan from Righteous Indignation podcast here.
Just to clarify something. Whilst I have not specifically banned anyone from our website (www.ripodcast.co.uk) I have blocked comments being posted from an IP number after some were made by an individual posting as Vampire Research Society.
Sean has told me via Facebook that 'the [Vampire] research society has any number of people who share its computer'. As such, if the poster was a member of the VRS then anyone using that IP number is effectively blocked. Other comments from different IP numbers related to that thread are queued for moderation by myself or my co-hosts. We reserve the right to do so in both cases.
In regards to our Facebook group I have deleted certain posts from specific individuals such as a long dead Hungarian and someone called Carol. Again, I reserve the right to do so.
In both cases nobody with the username Sean Manchester has been blocked or had their comments removed. Should anyone wish to read between the lines that is their choice to do so.
Coincidentally, Sean seems to be a very popular guest request for the show at present.
"Sean has told me via Facebook that 'the [Vampire] research society has any number of people who share its computer'. As such, if the poster was a member of the VRS then anyone using that IP number is effectively blocked"
Hi Trystan,
You know, I think this must be the funniest thing I have heard for a long time - from Sean I mean.
'That' said computer is based in the living room of a small private residence in Bournemouth (on a cliff-top to be more precise)and only one member of the so-called 'Vampire Research Society' uses it there. (Well, maybe two. Really not sure if he lets his wife use his computer).
So dear old Sean must have found himself in a bit of a dilemma. Still, he could always go down to the local Library I suppose!
Hope everything's well Trystan,
David Farrant
DON'T YOU GUYS EVER TALK IN PERSON ABOUT ALL THIS STUFF ??
well it worked..touche..got swale to respond OH YEAH...
Hi trystan and how's that radio stuff goin;
SEE i TOLD HIM I COME OVER HERE AT NIGHT FOR WAR-GAMES W/ DAVEY..AHHHoooo
oh yeah right like the bishop would be REAL pleased with us trying to "set-up F" ....he doesn't even like THIS, ya know all my nasty interlocution here.
That's why I stay on the other side of the "tracks" boys; that's why I deleted the blog that JBC went to, because it really is NOT my intent to cause scandle to him;
its just, well, that I have a mouth problem...ya know and I do my own thing....besides, I have fun here. I've already made him aware that I'm sorry for having a naughty mouth....but, well its just me. I'M AN AMERICAN DAMN IT and I don't bend the knee for any man hoo-rah !!
HI CAROL,
I wondered where you'd gone to again; although I'm still very much aware of your presence!
David Farrant
ok Dave......you believe in a divine "force" then, according to Newton's Law, there is an equal and opposite "re-action", or for your purposes, an equal and opposite "force."
Newton said it--- and his absolutes (laws) are the basics for Quantum Physics, zero-point energy--this is the big one here, strings, black holes, black stars, etc.
Evil spirits enter into an individual via the mind-"gateway"--they have to have a "door" or, an "invitation" because they come from hyper-space or are inter-dimensional; they also enter into this realm via open "portals" or "star-gates", "holes" in the fabric of space-time.
Question #2. do you believe in time ? If you acknowledge that "time" exists then please explain to me what time is.
I'm being serious--between you and me--don't worry about the others. this is our discussion.
I got worn-out just reading all this stuff....dave, you said SM stated your hair was dyed...when and where did he say that ?
is Craig Byron the blues dude ?
I'm going over to the other "195..." and see what's up over there...
where did Swale post ??
no that's true Craig, it wouldn't be the first time he's ever had to say that to Satan; you quoted Scripture; are you familiar with Scripture ? if so, how's that ?
daaaav-ID-- "Sean" does not participate here or any other web-based crazy place....now, there are OTHERS who may want to take you on--but it is NOT the bishop---
just like he would chastise me--but he's a frickin arch-bishop--he has to love me and forgive me...HE HAS TO; My point being: that even "if" he wanted to participate in this ridiculous crap--he can't--it would be too dangerous for his ordination position. YOU DON'T KNOW--BUT HE'S A REALLY GOOD CHRISTIAN MAN AND EXAMPLE, AND I'M TELLING YOU SWEARING BEFORE HEAVEN--AND THE LORD HIMSELF--SM does not participate in this low-life crap we all indulge in.
Anyway, I'm convinced that you continue to say "sean" or "bonkey" is posting here--because you KNOW it is upsetting to others--especially Anonymous. You should stop that--it's very mean.
FOR CAROL
I will answer this - or try to answer it - because you have asked an essential question.
You said:
"Question #2. do you believe in time ? If you acknowledge that "time" exists then please explain to me what time is.
I'm being serious--between you and me--don't worry about the others. this is our discussion".
OK forgetting 'Bonky' and the others, the simple answer is Carol, that time does not - or ever has - existed. There is man-made time - or measurement of the progression of the seasons, etc - but 'time' as you describe it - or as most other people describe it - does not really exist.
This moment we are living in now, is the same moment since eternity began.
In reality, we all exist in an 'eternal present'. The past is only a result of human memory, and the 'future' can only be a projection of these past memories into some future time.
Let me explain this perhaps more simply. You can not live one second or minute ago, you can only live now, in the present moment. The same applies to the so-called future; you can not actually live in the future, but only now.
We all exist in this 'now' and the past - or future - is only made up of human recollections of events that have gone before. But it is not possible to actually live in the past (or the future), you can only ever esist in this present moment.
So 'no', I do not believe in time.
Tragically, many peple apparently do (almost the whole world in fact!), and are thus 'trapped' by the consequences of such a belief.
But inn reality thee is no time - except that which is invented by human beings and measured by sand-dials or mechanical clocks accordingly.
Again, you can prove this to yourself (or anybody can). Try and live just one second or minute ago, and you will find this just cannot be done. You can only live in this moment; not before it or after it. That is all I mean by saying time does not really exist.
David
Don't waste your time David. Carol is a retard crack whore. Her brain is full of dope. She'd blow the Bishop if he stuck his whanger through the keyhole and gave her enough for a spider bag.
OK 'A PIRATE', point taken!
But my policy has always been to answer any questions about anything I may have said relating to the paranormal. And I have often gone into this question of time before. To ignore her question would otherwise be to somehow betray this basic principle.
It was a serious question, which was why I answered it. But which is also why I ignored her other statements relating to the 'bonky one's' self-styled 'religious status'.
If I'm going to make certain issues public, thn I have to be prepared to answer questions about about them, that's all.
David Farrant
Farrant said:
"You are confused yet again, Sean. You are talking about the film made in 1982, not the one Cat asked about which was made 10 years earlier in 1972 in Highgate Cemetery. You do get so confused about things Sean!"
October 24, 2009 5:38 PM
Take the trouble to check my IP, or get someone who is intelligent enough to do it on your behalf, and you will find that I am located approximately one hundred miles CLOSER to you and Craig Adams than is Manchester. Work that one out if your brain can struggle to do anything beyond posting lies.
Now back to your recent bare-faced falsehood:
"You are talking about the film made in 1982, not the one Cat asked about which was made 10 years earlier in 1972 in Highgate Cemetery."
Correct, I AM talkin about the ten minutes' amateur students' film made by Paul Trybits, Simon Sharkey, Neil Purvis and Peter Spencer in September 1982. And, more to the point, SO WERE YOU when Baldry's Cat first enquired on your blog about the TitBits images.
This is what you stated on your blog:
"That film was made in 1972, Cat, not the 1960’s. It was made by a group of students from the Hatfield Polytechnic and based on events in June 1971 when we held a second ceremony in Highgate Cemetery which was not interupted by the police. A young lady present was convinced ’something’ had manifestated during this ceremony and had tried to suffocate her: she was terrified hence the reconstruction. It took two full days of filming to complete – at least the Highgate Cemetery location footage did."
David Farrant, October 18, 2009 at 5:29 pm
http://davidfarrant.org/TheHumanTouch/?p=622#comments
So it was you, Farrant, who told Baldry's Cat that the images were from a film made by students from Hatfield Polytechnic in 1972. Except there was no film in 1972 and the Hatfield Polytechnic film was made in 1982. When you realised you had become snared by your own deceitfulness you desperately tried to claim there were two films. But there wasn't, there was only the 1982 film. Just as you lied to the Barnet Advertiser about the 1982 film, you are lying to Baldry's Cat and everyone else reading this blog and your own blog about the TitBits pictures.
If, as you claim, the TitBits pictures were from reconstruction footage over two days shot at Highgate Cemetery, NAME THE FILM AND THE PRODUCTION COMPANY THAT MADE IT. Also, name anywhere the film was shown. You will not be able to do so, Farrant, because no such film was made.
The pictures were shot by a photo agency photographer for the magazine and, as commonly happens, you were supplied with a set of the black and prints for yourself, as you had received no fee for collaborating with the article by Kit Miller. You were not given permission to publish these photographs as the copyright is owned by the photo agency.
As for the female in the pictures, she is not an actress, as you have claimed to Baldry's Cat, but an acquaintance of yours who you used for other publicity stunts in the press about witchcraft in the period prior to your imprisonment. She did not reappear after your release from prison because, like the others you duped into taking their clothes off, she felt she had been misled and exploited.
"HIGHGATE VAMPIRE THE SUBJECT OF NEW FILM"
That is the sensational headline to an article written by Simon O'Neill for the Barnet & District Advertiser (35a High Street, Barnet, Herts) that was published on 16 September 1982.
O'Neill's article states:
"Muswell Hill resident David Farrant, and the British Occult Society of which he is a founder member and President are the subjects of a new documentary film which was completed recently. The film is entitled 'The Highgate Vampire' and it centres around the strange occurrences in Highgate cemetery which attracted world-wide Press interest thirteen years ago."
Later in the article, O'Neill writes:
"In an effort to make contact with the so-called Vampire, Mr Farrant conducted a ritual in the ceremony but the venture proved unsuccessful and to make matters worse he was arrested."
The Barnet Advertiser article concludes:
"'The Highgate Vampire', which chronicles the events prior to Mr Farrant's first arrest was made by Just Haniger and a five man crew from the Polytechnic of Central London. While there are no immediate planes to release it in this country, it is likely to be shown in Europe and may well appear on our screens in the not too distant future."
All of which was a pile of horse manure shovelled onto the readers of the Barnet & District Advertiser by David Farrant!
"Just Haniger" (real name Joost Hunningher) was absolutely furious and had plenty to say about Farrant's deception to the press and public. His rebuttal to everything Farrant had claimed was published six weeks after the misleading article by Simon O'Neill appeared. The British Occult Society was equally displeased at having their name hijacked by Farrant and used fraudulently by him. They, too, had a retraction published.
PUBLISHED STATEMENT FROM JOOST HUNNINGHER, PRINCIPAL LECTURER IN FILM, SCHOOL OF COMMUNICATION (BASED AT HATFIELD POLYTECHNIC), TO THE EDITOR OF THE BARNET & DISTRICT ADVERTISER:
"An article by Simon O'Neill on page 10 of your paper of 16 September has been brought to my attention, and I would be grateful if you would let your readers know that it is substantially miselading and inaccurate in the following way:
1. The photograph of David Farrant and Jean-Paul Bourre has absolutely no connection to the film.
2. The work of the British Occult Society is not discussed in the film.
3. The film does not centre 'around the strange occurrences in Highgate Cemetery which attracted world-wide press interest 13 years ago.'
4. The film does not chronicle 'the events prior to Mr Farrant's first arrest.'
5. The film was not made by 'Just Haniger.'
6. There has been no discussion in Europe or in this country to suggest that the film 'may well appear on our screens in the not too distant future.'
"A film about David Farrant was made by Paul Trybits, Simon Sharkey, Neil Purvis and Peter Spencer, who were then 1st Year students on our honours degree course in Film & Photographic Arts. This exercise was part of a six week documentary block in which students were asked to make a film portrait of one person. Mt Farrant was a co-operative and sympathetic subject, and in the film he explains his interest in the 'old religion based upon the worship of nature.' He also refers to his jail sentence, but the film does not try to evaluate the justice or injustice of his case or the accuracy of his remarks."
WRONG YET AGAIN SEAN!
There were many more than two films, Sean, but I was talking about a student film from 1972 made by students from the Hatfield Polytechic. It was yourself who was confusing this with the other student film made in 1982.
If you think for one minute, I am going to name people to yourself and subject them to a further stream of your innane harassment and Internet stalking, then think again! I have already stated the name of the polytechnic that the students were from and I am not obliged to give firther details to yourself, Sean.
If you remember, I had absolutely no contact with you through 1971/72
save for a Court appearance when I saw you in Court in April 1971. You did not start visiting me again at my home in Highgate until early 1973 (and then this was mainly to do with your on-going publicity schemes)and so you could have no idea of my committments or relationships during those two years. All you are left with are your own speculations - which have never been accurate to say the least.
I am certainly not going to give you the girl's name. In fact, this is no secret and if you had done your research properly, you would already know it. But you haven't, as per usual!
1973 was the year you began work at North Finchley Swimming Pool if you recall. You were living in Southgate around this time and used to visit me on your scooter always bringing your crash helmet upstairs with you. These visits were witnessed by many, many people, but prior to this, I had not seen you since 1970.
Try and get your facts right Sean, as you are only making a fool of yourself. Doesn't take too much I suppose!
David Farrant
Address me as whomever you like, but my IP will reveal you are a paronoid obsessive and, unlike Manchester, that I am virtually located on your doorstep.
There was no film from 1972 made by students from the Hatfield Polytechic, as well you know, which is why you cannot provide any evidence to support your claim. There was only ONE film made by students from Hatfield Polytechnic and that is the ten minutes' effort made as a 1st Year exercise in September 1982. THERE WAS NO OTHER HATFIELD POLYTECHNIC STUDENTS' FILM.
You have no need to provide me with the female's name, Farrant, because I already know it. Like the rest, she turned on you after your despicable exploitation and fabricated stories in newspapers.
There is no point in talking to ME about scooters, pools and court appearances about which I know nothing. If you are so hung up about things that happened thirty or forty years ago, talk to someone who actually gives a damn. I don't. And if you're so obsessed with Manchester and reliving a ground-hog day every day of your life, contact him.
Everyone will note, however, your TOTAL EVASION OF THE FABRICATED STORY IN THE BARNET ADVERTISER, 16 SEPTEMBER 1982, AND THE REFUTATION OF YOUR CLAIMS BY THE PRINCIPAL LECTURER AT HATFIELD POLYTECHNIC.
FOOLING NO-ONE!
Nice try Sean! But your futile attempts to disguise your real identity are fooling nobody - except maybe yourself.
You know all about your numerous witnessed visits in 1973 to my Highgate flat.
These visits totally give a lie to what you are trying to deny now. That aside, I repeat you are referring to a student film made in 1982 not the one which was filmed and shown in 1972.
If you can't remember your visits in 1973, then how on earth could you be expected to remember events in 1971/2 - a two year period when you did not visit myself?
The answer is, of course, that you couldn't know. Simply because you were not around then!
It is only in 1973 that you could know about any events when you re-emerged again with a fresh innterest in the Highgate business.
David Farrant
David, so you and Bonky knew each other in 1968, had a period of "falling out", then reunited in 1972? Help me with the chronology here.
Despite Farrant's lies and evasive tactics, the Hunchback first became acquainted with Manchester (who you childishly call "Bonky") in late February 1970. There was never any "friendship" - only an acquaintanceship due to Farrant's phoney claims in the media to start with and later to monitor and investigate the Hunchback due to his fraudulent use of the name of the British Occult Society and subsequent claims of occult practices.
Farrant will say otherwise, of course, but these matters were recorded at the time. It is also who you choose to believe. Farrant's claims vary and alter considerably, depending on the day and the hour he recounts the history. Manchester's have been consistently the same from the beginning. The Hunchback might have been aware of the existence of Manchester before 1970, but Manchester was not aware of Farrant's existence until the fateful letter written by the Hunchback and published in the Readers' Letters column of the Hampstead & Highgate Express, 6 February 1970.
Farrant (the Hunchback) continues to evade all reference to his fraudulent claims to the Barnet Advertiser which led to Simon O'Neill's miselading article and Joost Hunningher's rebuttal statement on behalf of Hatfield Polytechnic. He cannot adequately respond to this because this matter of public record proves he is a liar and fabricator.
MORE SENILE CONFUSION!
I find your confusion absolutely astounding, Sean! You seem to find it impossible to get any of your facts right.
I quite clearly stated that the first student film made in 1972, was made by students from the Hatfield Polytechnic.
I was NOT referring to another student film which was made in 1982 by students from the Central London Polytechic - NOT The Hatfield Polytechnic
This is the film Cat was asking about and this was what I answered.
It is only yourself who is confusing this with the 1982 film which was not relevant to Cat's question. And its still not relevant as this is not what was being iscussed. YOU are the person who is confusing this film with the first one. So there is really nothing to answer. Except possibly the question of whether you are suffering from senile dementia!
David Farrant
There was no student film made in 1972. There was only the student film made by Hatfield Polytechnic in 1982. This is why you can identify the 1982 film. Indeed, you sold illicit video copies of it without consent from the copyright owner. But you cannot identify anything about the mythological 1972 film because it is pure fiction. You are quick enough to provide information about other films, but someohow you cannot on this occasion. The reason why you cannot is glaringly obvious.
Then you try to confuse matters further by saying that Hatfield Polytechnic is different to the Polytechnic of Central London when they are one and the same entity. The term "Polytechnic of Central London" was used to cover all the polytechnics including Hatfield Polytechnic which came under that general heading. The "Polytechnic of Central London" was the head office for all the polytechnics in central and north London.
No evidence, therefore, to support the existence of a 1972 students' film made by Hatfield Polytechnic will be forthcoming while plenty of evidence to support the 1982 ten minutes' students' film will be found due to Farrant's ruthless exploitation of anything and everything to serve his mindless self-publicity and attention-seeking.
Sean, you poor confused old man!
The 1972 film based on Highgate Cemetery and partly filmed in it) was made by students from the Hatfield Polytechnic (where they studied)which, as its name suggests is (or was if its still there)based in Hatfield. As you may be aware, Hatfield is about 20 or so to the North of London.
The film made in 1982 was again made by students but these were based at the Polytechnic of Central London. This is where they worked and went to study.
The two films were completely different and which was why there was a 10-year gap between them.
In your confusion you seem to be mixing up the two films and seem to be demanding that I answer questions about the 1982 film which Cat was not asking about.
I have given my answer to this but you now seem to be trying to divert this away to something irrelevant which you yourself introduced. I am not going to be misled by those tactics. Nice try though!
David Farrant
"David, so you and Bonky knew each other in 1968, had a period of "falling out", then reunited in 1972? Help me with the chronology here".
OK Cat
First, sorry for any delay but I've been havig to reply to some mixed up individual who keeps getting things wrong!
I first met the 'bonnky individual' in late 1967 in the Woodman pub in Highgate. I had no idea who he was at the time only that he knew a (then) friend of mine. I knew him on and off for a couple of years after that but he was never a friend as such, just an associate.
He became mixed up in the Highgate business which was all over the Press at the time. Due to one thing and another we fell out over the Highgate business towards the end of 1970 (I guess this would have been in September or October,and because of thisI did not meet him again in person for over 2 years, until early 1973.
During 1973 he visited me quite regularly at my flat in Highgate and it was obvious he was still interested in the Highgate case, especially the 'vampire angle'. He was also very interested in myself and my 'witchcraft activities' which kept getting into the Press.
In February 1974 I was arrested over these and ended up with an almost 5-year jail sentence.
When I was in prison he wrote to me quite regularly and he also visited me when I was in jail in London.
I was released in July 1976 and moved to Muswell Hill (which boarders onto Highgate proper)and he visited me at my flat there after my release until 1986.
In fact, 1986 is the last time I met him in person. We had a 'falling out' over a self-published book he'd written about a 'vampire' in Highgate Cemetery. He'd used some of my copyright pictures without permission and made inaccurate comments about myself in the text which I didn't approve of.
That's about it! Well there's a lot more but too long for here.
So those were the dates which you enquired about.
For now
David Farrant
"you poor confused old man!"
You don't know who I am or my age, but I know you, Farrant, will soon be "celebrating" your sixty-fourth birthday.
Do you not qualify as an "old man"?
Why does hypocrisy lace almost everything you say?
This question, of course, is rhetorical.
"Hatfield is about 20 or so to the North of London."
Claiming that Hatfield is twenty miles or so outside North London is absurd. It takes me less than ten minutes (the length of your students' film) to drive to Hatfield from the Highgate perimeter of North London, traffic permitting.
Hatfield, like Highgate, was once considered outside of London proper. Hatfield now belongs to the Greater London Area and Hatfield Polytechnic falls under the authority of the Polytechnic of Central London.
"You seem to be demanding that I answer questions about the 1982 film which Cat was not asking about."
Demanding? I merely put it to you that the debacle over the article written by Simon O'Neill at your behest in the Barnet Advertiser and subsequent rebuttals prove once again you are a liar.
"I first met the 'bonnky individual' in late 1967 in the Woodman pub in Highgate."
Farrant claims that he first met Manchester in “late 1967.” Manchester claims he first met Farrant in "early 1970." Farrant conveniently slips all manner of unsubstantiated allegations into this three years discrepancy.
When they did eventually become acquainted in late February/early March 1970, Manchester only visited Farrant at someone's coal bunker in Archway Road and later, following Farrant's term in jail, an attic bedsitting room in Muswell Hill Road.
Farrant, however, alleges in an entry on his blog for 2 July 2009:
“I first met [Manchester] in late 1967 in a pub called The Woodman in Highgate. I had brought Mary back from Spain to London in March 1967 after she had discovered that she was pregnant. We got married in a Roman Catholic Church in September 1967 and it was around this time that we used to frequent The Woodman pub just across the road from where we were living in Highgate. Mary had become friendly with a young mother nicknamed ‘Zibby’ who was married to a man named Tony [Hill] and sometimes the four of us would go into The Woodman and spend a few hours there. Now, at this time, a small trio jazz band used to play in the Saloon bar from a make-shift wooden platform at the back. There was somebody on drums, an electric guitarist and another individual [Manchester] who played the saxophone.”
There is no mention of them meeting so far. In Farrant’s self-published “autobiography,” which first made its appearance in 2009, he claims: “I learned that he had an avid interest in ‘ghosts’ and the supernatural, although he was later to say that his ‘speciality’ was vampires. He suggested that we must all meet up again when he wasn’t playing, and have a chat about the subject.”
This claim is contradicted by Mary Farrant who denies her husband's interest in the supernatural at this time or indeed him knowing Manchester in person even if he heard Hill mention him. She might eventually have become aware of Manchester from whatever Hill told her when they spent six months living together. She met him only once when Hill and Mary called on Manchester when they first "eloped." They wanted him to put them up for the night, but Manchester would not become involved. He was also acquainted with Mrs Hill and did not want to feel compromised.
Farrant could have learned of Manchester’s paranormal interests from Hill with whom Farrant was only superficially acquainted at the time due to Hill’s increasing interest in Farrant's wife who worked as a barmaid in the evenings at The Woodman; though Hill would have known nothing about any case his old employer was involved in. Manchester was neither acquainted with Farrant or Farrant’s wife, Mary, but knew Hill from the time Hill worked part-time in Manchester’s darkroom in the 1960s when the latter ran a photographic studio. Hill was also employed in the mornings as a milkman in North West London.
Hill and Mrs Farrant became an item and “eloped” for six months. Manchester did not personally know Farrant, but was vaguely aware of having seen Mary work as a barmaid and met her just once when Hill ran off with her for six months. When Hill returned to his wife and Mary returned briefly to her husband it was not long before Farrant was declared bankrupt and became evicted from his flat. By which time Mrs Farrant had left her husband with their two children and returned to her parents in Southampton. The next time Farrant saw her was at the Old Bailey in June 1974 when she was called as a defence witness on his behalf. Mary confirmed under oath that her husband had no interest in ghosts, witchcraft or the occult, and that Farrant's visits to Highgate Cemetery were for "a bit of a laugh and a joke and to look round."
Manchester’s version of events is recorded in his introduction to The Vampire Hunter’s Handbook (Gothic Press, 1997):
“It was whilst blowing a long jazz solo on the tenor saxophone in The Woodman, Highgate, where [Farrant’s] wife worked some evenings as a barmaid, that Farrant first caught sight of me in 1968. I would remain oblivious of him, however, until the beginning of the next decade. Who knows what went through his mind as he listened to my improvised harmonic structures, accompanied by a perspiring rhythm section, in that dimly lit venue for modern jazz aficionados? It was not his kind of music, but he mentioned it when I interviewed him in 1970.”
On pages 62-63 of The Vampire Hunter’s Handbook, Manchester reveals:
“His alleged sightings of the vampire were to coincide with the time when he was ensconced in [Hill’s] coal cellar. His wife was gone and so were the people who had helped him squander his money. His interest was not the occult at this time, but pub-crawling and the collecting of exotic birds; mostly cockatoos, parrots and macaws. This earned him the nickname ‘Birdman.’ Ironically, Hill had the nickname ‘Eggman.’ Relishing the attention he was now receiving, following his alleged sightings of a vampire, he took foolish risks and ended up being arrested in August 1970 for being in an enclosed area for an unlawful purpose. His ‘vampire hunting’ days were over.”
The Hampstead & Highgate Express, 6 March 1970, records the first meeting of Farrant and Manchester on its front page, under the banner headline “Why Do The Foxes Die?” The newspaper recounts:
“David Farrant … returned to the spot last weekend and disovered a dead fox. 'Several other foxes have also been found dead in the cemetery,' he said at his home in Priestwood Mansions, Archway Road, Highgate. 'The odd thing is there was no outward sign of how they died. Much remains unexplained, but what I have recently learnt all points to the vampire theory being the most likely answer. Should this be so, I for one am prepared to pursue it, taking whatever means might be necessary so that we can all rest.' The vampire theory was suggested last week by Mr Seán Manchester, president of the British Occult Society. … Mr Farrant and Mr Manchester met in the cemetery at the weekend.”
The British Occult Society (1860-1988) was an investigation bureau which existed solely for the purpose of examining occult claims and alleged paranormal activity. It gave birth to the Vampire Research Society, which still survives, on 2 February 1970.
Farrant carried out his threat to "pursue [the vampire], taking whatever means might be necessary" and was arrested on the night of 17 August 1970. The Daily Express, 19 August 1970, reveals Farrant’s explanation:
"‘My intention was to search out the supernatural being and destroy it by plunging the stake [found in his possession when arrested in Highgate Cemetery by police] in its heart.’"
The report continues:
"David Farrant pleaded guilty at Clerkenwell, London, to entering St Michael's churchyard, Highgate Cemetery, for an unlawful purpose. Farrant told police he had just moved to London when he heard people talking about the vampire in Highgate Cemetery. In a statement he said that he heard the vampire rises out of a grave and wanders about the cemetery on the look-out for human beings on whose blood it thrives. Police keeping watch for followers of a black magic cult arrested him. He was remanded in custody for reports. Last night, Mr Seán Manchester, leader of the British Occult Society, said: ‘I am convinced that a vampire exists in Highgate Cemetery. Local residents and passers-by have reported seeing a ghostlike figure of massive proportions near the north gate'."
Anonymous said...
"Manchester’s version of events is recorded in his introduction to The Vampire Hunter’s Handbook (Gothic Press, 1997):"
And I say who gives a shit?
“It was whilst blowing a long jazz solo on the tenor saxophone in The Woodman, Highgate that Farrant first caught sight of me in 1968. I would remain oblivious of him, however, until the beginning of the next decade."
Manchester knows exactly the moment someone looked at him yet claims to have remain oblivious of the looker? This dude is paranormal. Or a liar.
MEMORY LAPSE
Oh dear! It seems the old boy really is getting forgetful! Well I guess we shouldn't blame him for that: after all, its just age!
He seems to have completely forgotten, for example' that not only did I actually meet him in the Woodman pub bacxk in the 1960's, but that his close friend Lusia often made me tea or coffee when I visited him at his North London flat in 1969/1970.
Indeed, on at least two occasions, 'Lusia' even served me dinner.
Her cooking wasn't that good, but she did try, I'll give her that!
I often wonder wher 'Lusia' is now. I know it was all a long time ago, but I'm sure she's have some tales to tell.
For instance, how she was described once by some nutcase as becoming a vampire and then turning into a gint spider.
The mind boggles at such stories, but he was a nice looking Gaal so can't really blame anybody for using her as a mode! Top on; or top off. It seemed to make no difference to the photographer!
David Farrant
“It was whilst blowing a long jazz solo on the tenor saxophone in The Woodman, Highgate that Farrant first caught sight of me in 1968. I would remain oblivious of him, however, until the beginning of the next decade."
"Manchester knows exactly the moment someone looked at him yet claims to have remain oblivious of the looker? This dude is paranormal. Or a liar."
The intelligence of those responding to my comments leaves something to be desired. Listen carefully ......
He makes no mention of the "moment someone looked at him." He would have based this comment on what he was later told by Hill who was Manchester's part-time employee and regular in The Woodman for the purpose of chatting-up Farrant's wife who was a barmaid. Can you follow that?
Manchester played a couple or so gigs at The Woodman and was vaguely aware of the barmaid because she would have brought drinks to the band members. But he only knew her as a barmaid. He would have no idea who Farrant might be. Are you still following me?
Hill was a regular at The Woodman because it was a few yards up the road from where he lived in Archway Road and he was smitten by the barmaid who was Farrant's wife. in other words, it was his local pub. Still with me?
Manchester did not socilaise at The Woodman and played a couple of gigs where he would have been concentrating on the music. He would have had no idea who Farrant was and would have cared even less. Why would he be interested in someone like Farrant even if he was introduced to him, which, incidentally, according to Manchester he was not? Hill, on the other hand, was acquainted with Farrant in order to get closer to Mrs Farrant. So if Farrant had been in the pub at any time Manchester was performing it is quite possible that Hill much later might have mentioned that fact to Manchester. I suspect it would have been at a time when Farrant was seeking attention in the press. Hill probably told Manchester that Farrant was once in the pub when he was playing in a jazz band.
MORE INTRIGUING BY THE MINUTE!
So now we're finally getting a little closer to the truth here, Sean.
you have finlly admitted that you WERE playing in a small trio jass band in the Woodman pub in 1967 (and onwards). You have also dmitted that I used to go into the Woodman pub when you were playing there.
Well, I guess the next step is, really (now you have admitted Tony was a friend of your's), just what was I doing in the Woodman pub with Tony? Are you still trying to maintain that Tony never introduced myself to you Sean. Or are you perhaps saying that you totally ignored Tony inbetween 'playing breaks'?
your story gets more and more intriguing!
Well Sean?
David Farrant
"He makes no mention of the "moment someone looked at him." He would have based this comment on what he was later told by Hill who was Manchester's part-time employee and regular in The Woodman for the purpose of chatting-up Farrant's wife who was a barmaid. Can you follow that?"
Yes. Manchester wrote in a book about the exact moment (a long sax solo) "Farrant first caught sight of me." You say he knows this because...the Tony dude told Manchester that Farrant first saw him while he was on stage blowing a long sax solo. How can you know a small detail like that, unless you are either Tony or Manchester?
Well he couldn't know that could he: unless he was well aware of my presence in that pub (The Woodman).
Just out of interest the 'Tony dude' was working as a milkman at this time, and the 'bonky one' also took up employment as a milkman in 1971.
I have his work records and it appears he was earning a lot more money than when he was playing (or trying to play!) the saxaphone in the Woodman pub.
David Farrant
"MORE INTRIGUING BY THE MINUTE!"
What I find intriguing is that one "anonymous" contributor has such an extraordinary encylopaedic memory of the bishop's personal experiences. The tinyest detail of the bishop's experience can be supplied, as long as it serves to rebut Farrant. And there is no "I'll ask the bishop and get back to you" time lag. The answers are authoritative and immediate.
David I wonder if you feel this "anonymous" chap possesses some form of "psychic" ability???
"David I wonder if you feel this "anonymous" chap possesses some form of "psychic" ability???"
I think its more a matter of personal recollections, Cat!
David (Farrant)
"Manchester wrote in a book about the exact moment (a long sax solo) "Farrant first caught sight of me." You say he knows this because...the Tony dude told Manchester that Farrant first saw him while he was on stage blowing a long sax solo. How can you know a small detail like that?"
I didn't say I "know" - what I offered was a likelihood based on what seems logical. Manchester is an author who has an eye for detail. Why wouldn't he remember something told to him by Hill? If he did forget, I am sure the "Tony dude" would have reminded him because that period was important to Tony for reasons already explained.
All I am doing is demonstrating how Manchester could have easily been oblivious of Farrant while later being made aware (by Hill) of when Farrant noticed him. I could be wrong. There are all sorts of possibilities to explain how Manchester knew when Farrant first caught sight of him. Perhaps Mrs Farrant told Hill who told Manchester?
"And there is no "I'll ask the bishop and get back to you" time lag. The answers are authoritative and immediate."
Well, perhaps not "immediate" exactly, but I will accept "authorative" because all I need to do is consult Manchester's own published works on or off line in hardcopy.
Putting in a search for a particular matter is hardly rocket science. I, like others, am very familiar with these issues as the Hunchback has been raising them for years. Those of us with an interest become used to who said what and where it can be located etc.
'hunchback' is politically incorrect and despicable to use a term of abuse--its like using blind or deaf or paralysed---would manchester have sat saying nothing at his birthday party if someone started stripping off or murdering their neigbour and say its nothing to do with me---wow that guy cant half talk some twaddle about his set ups---its never anything to do with him is it, poor helpless bonky
all this naughty people causing him to be forced to attack david!!!!who of course he isnt remotely interested in-well nonnymus, stop writing about it then poor bobky wont have to trouble his pretty little head!
The fact is that while complaining, Barabra, you hypocritically wmploy an abusive term to describe Manchester, a term which means someone who is mentally deficient. What's the difference between that and using a term referring to a physical deficiency?
While you and the rest do that, and let's face it you've all been doing it for years, I shall stick with calling Farrant "The Hunchback."
I cannot take the credit for using that term, however, because it was originally coined by Carol who used it before me on this blog and a journalist on Fortean Times which magazine used it to describe Farrant as far back as 1996.
I suspect what's really getting under your skin, Barbara, is the fact that you know full well Manchester is not mentally deficient while Farrant is clearly a foetally-hunched Hunchback and has been since he came into the world sixty-four years ago.
Post a Comment