One of our sponsors came up with a rather unique proposal to resolve the Highgate "feud": a charity exhibition held at Manchester's gothic-themed Hell Fire club."Farrant and the Bishop can have a go at each other in a boxi
ng ring, they can debate, or even have a foot race if they like. We're open to what ever they want to do," Hell Fire's manager Peter Gibbon explained, "we're keen to host a competition between England's famous vampire hunters with the proceeds going to a charity of their choice." Gibbon said local shock rockers Al B. Damned and sexy entertainers The Glitter Kittens have also expressed interest in the programme.
23 comments:
AN OPEN LETTER TO THE BONKY ONE
"The test would be about the Bradish case and what led up to it. Nothing else"
It hardly surprises me that you should insist on that, “Ariminous” (a question that I have already agreed to PROVIDING you answer it as well – in particular not forgetting the anonymous letters you sent to that family in 1970 threatening them to ‘revoke my bail’) because you have got far too much you’d rather avoid answering. You see, your life has consisted of one big lie, ‘Ariminous” from your account about ‘staking two vampires’ to the desperate postulations you make here about your true identity.
You see, we all know what that truly is, Sean, and it comes as little surprise that you would be almost desperate to avoid that question. It would be tantamount to admitting that all the hateful and untruthful things you have said about myself and others over the years (your latest “Ariminous” Blog being an excellent example) are the result of the actions of just one person . . . yourself Sean.
Your latest question as to whether I want to ‘end the feud’, is really farcial! 99% of my posts (or other peoples’ posts) are made to retract lies that you continually keep telling - this usually ‘backed up’ by ‘cut n’ pasted’ material from years back which you have deliberately taken out of its original context.
So the answer to your own question is, stop making all your untruthful allegations and then these won’t have to be answered.
If other people have picked up on all this nonsense (in America and Australia, for example) and decided to question your claims (or even decided to manufacture comics, mugs and T-shirts about them) you really have only yourself to blame.
The latest proposal from the “Hellfire Club” (or whatever its called) is just another example of how people are laughing at your ridiculous claims and antics.
You have made NO genuine attempts to meet myself, Sean. You made one ridiculous invitation THROUGH A NEWSPAPER INVITING A REPORTER TO BE PRESENT at the beginning of this century inviting me to your ‘retreat’ offering to ‘exorcise’ myself with a group of your cronies. I naturally rejected this as a publicity stunt and my comments were published in that newspaper.
I, on the other hand, have offered you two genuine invitations to meet with myself with your wife at my flat. I said that only my secretary, Patsy, would be present, but so far there has been no response and you have pretended that you are not aware of this. You are Sean – you most definitely ARE!
So, if you are sincere about ending a feud which has been 99% of your own making, lets forget public exhibitions (such as the one the “Hellfire Club” have now suggested) and give me some response in your own name as to whether you accept my suggestion.
Don’t get back here as usual under your “Ariminous” label parroting . . . “I am not SM”. We all know its you Sean, just be man enough to admit this for a change.
So, Sean, are you willing to accept this private invitation to this proposed private meeting?
I have made this invitation publicly again so everybody can see that it is a genuine one. (And please note I have put my own name to it).
David Farrant
The joke falls flat in the detail because Farrant has not described himself as a "vampire hunter" since 1970 and in recent times has emphatically denied ever embarking upon vampire hunts in the past.
The Bishop has never formally accepted the label "vampire hunter" but does not deny his pursuit and exorcism of such demonic entities which have been described by the term "vampire" from the eighteenth century to the present day.
Farrant has been challenged to put his self-professed "powers" to the test before independent witnesses in the past. He cried off from one such challenge set to test his "powers" in 1973 and has never subsequently accepted to be tested.
Farrant seems content to post abuse about the Bishop on a regular basis without ever coming face to face with him. He has been asked whether he wants to continue what is unequivocally a vendetta against the Bishop to the end of his days, but so far Farrant has not managed to provide an answer.
The Bishop is content to ignore Farrant until such time lives are put in danger due to incitement of hatred and privacy violations. He is nevertheless open to meeting Farrant at his private retreat.
My true identity?
Farrant having established that the Bishop's camp can no longer post here as they were apparently banned by Baldry's Cat, how can I be anyone other than my own man?
Regarding my "latest blog," what exactly is so "hateful" about it? All it consists of are images of Farrant with newspaper articles containing interviews he has given. There is no additional comment or text. So how does "hate" come into it?
If he is referring to the name of the blog -The Hunchback - that comes after years of Farrant posting hateful abuse where he childishly calls the Bishop "bonkers" and "bonky." If Farrant can't take it, he really shouldn't dish it out.
Farrant has everything upside down and reverse way around. My blogs and comments would not have come into existence but for his daily hate campaign against the Bishop.
As for "invitations," the Bishop's invitation to Farrant was published via a third party on the Fortean Times forum seven years ago. One of the moderators asked if there was a deadline or if the invitation was open. It was established at the time that the invitation is open, meaning that Farrant can take up the option any time he wants. However, he has consistently chosen not to do so.
Farrant has been reminded of this invitation many times since then and has chosen to ignore them all.
This is what a completely impartial observer, someone by the name of Anthony Hogg, recently observed about Farrant's prevarication and double-dealing on the offer made by the Bishop:
"After David's request were met...he decided to switch things around. He went on to insist that Manchester contact him or post a comment on his blog. JBC thinks Manchester's original terms are too disagreeable. For some reason. This was after I was pointing out that David was putting up obvious tit-for-tat roadblocks to prevent the meeting going ahead. You know, a step towards ending this bloody feud. That didn't surprise me in the least."
http://dawwih.blogspot.com/2009/10/im-checking-in.html
"Regarding my "latest blog," what exactly is so "hateful" about it? All it consists of are images of Farrant with newspaper articles containing interviews he has given. There is no additional comment or text. So how does "hate" come into it?"
First of Sean, lets be perfectly clear: "Ariminous Vambery" does not exist (at least now). It is the name of some hungarian nobleman you are using, Sean, who in fact died in the last century.
It is just another one of your aliases that you either invent or copy all the time, Sean.
As to your Blog, Sean, which you - and you alone created - it contains stolen copyright images for one thing and some of these you have deliberately 'doctored' (like the one of myself wearing the T-shirt, for example). The two showing myself in Highgate Wood are in fact Catherine's copyright and still have not explained how you got them.
The one showing Robin Hood's grave showing Barbara, Gareth, myself and Catherine is another one of my exclusive copyright pictures which you have stolen without seeking permission.
And that's just for starters!
You accuse everybody else of doing the very things of which you are most guilty yourself, Sean.
David Farrant
"Ariminous Vambery does not exist," declares Farrant.
Does "Baldry's Cat" exist?
Quite why Farrant addresses me as the Bishop is puzzling given that Farrant claimed again and again that Anonymous was the Bishop and Baldry's Cat has since confirmed that Anonymous is banned.
To reiterate what I have said before, the Bishop has never posted on this blog and almost certainly never would post on it.
The images Farrant refers to as being his have been claimed by his ex-partner as belonging to her. Who do I believe? Hmmm. Let me think for a split-second. I certainly do not believe Farrant. Who in their right mind would?
What I would like to know is who Farrant resents and despises most: the Eggman or the Bishop?
And is it Farrant's preference to take his hate campaign against the Bishop to the grave rather than seek to end it?
THOU SHALT NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS!
"The images Farrant refers to as being his have been claimed by his ex-partner as belonging to her. Who do I believe? Hmmm. Let me think for a split-second. I certainly do not believe Farrant. Who in their right mind would?"
I do not have an 'ex- partner', "Ariminous", only an ex- secretary.
IF (and its a big 'if') this is what you have been told about my copyright pictures, I am afraid somebody has been lying to you.
The photograph taken at Robin Hood's grave showing Barbara, Gareth, myself and Catherine was taken by Red Monkey Films. It was one of several they took using my camera. Lie number one exposed.
The T-shirt photograph (which you doctored) was taken long after I had dismissed my ex-secretary so she couldn't possibly hold the copyright, could she? Lie number two exposed.
And I haven't even got onto other photographs yet.
But lets deal with these two that I mentioned first, shall we?
David Farrant
More lies from Farrant.
Now he is claiming his ex-partner was only his "ex-secretary" when everyone knows they were in a relationship for three years!
Farrant met and had dinner with this woman's parents as a precursor to their engagement.
They slept together in the same bed for heaven's sake!
Now Farrant denies she was his ex-partner and potential fiancee. Ah well, nothing really changes.
Why doesn't Farrant stop muddying the waters and start dealing with some of the questions already raised?
For example, I would like to know who Farrant resents and despises most: the Eggman or the Bishop?
Finally, is it Farrant's intention to take this hate campaign against the Bishop to the grave or would he like to terminate the "feud"?
AND NOW SOME "PUDDING LIES"!
"They slept together in the same bed for heaven's sake!
Now Farrant denies she was his ex-partner and potential fiancee. Ah well, nothing really changes."
How would you know Bonky when you wern't even here? All you could possibly know is what she told you.
And considering how vindictive and deceitful ahe turned after I was forced to terminate our friendship ith yourself, I wouldn't put too much reliance on that!
Which leads to anothr point. You have previously denied have any contact with that person since she first approached you back in 2006 to apologise.
But only a couple of days ago you said she had contacted you to give you permission to use her photographs. She also apparent lied by telling you she owned the copyright pictures. I told you which photographs these were but you've carefully avoided that.
Explain please!
David Farrant
When the Hunchback finally works out that Seán Manchester and Arminius Vámbéry are not the same person he will come to realise it is perfectly possible for Arminius Vámbéry to have contact with his ex-girlfriend without Seán Manchester having had contact.
For my part, I have no idea who has contact with whom. What I do know is that the apology came in 2007 and not 2006 which was a time when the Hunchback was still getting this poor girl to do his foul deeds for him.
"When the Hunchback finally works out that Seán Manchester and Arminius Vámbéry are not the same person he will come to realise it is perfectly possible for Arminius Vámbéry to have contact with his ex-girlfriend without Seán Manchester having had contact."
Why thank you Sean! You have just 'doublely confirmed' that you have been in contact with her. Not that you had to, as everybody knows anyway!
David Farrant
Farrant really should try to get some help for his obsessions.
It's all in the past. Forget it.
Get over it. Try and enter the present.
In other words ... get a life!
"It's all in the past. Forget it.
Get over it. Try and enter the present."
If you didn't keep bringing distant past events into the present, Sean, there would be no need to keep answering these, would there?!?
David Farrant
Yesterday is long gone.
Get a life.
"Yesterday is long gone".
What a pathetic answer, Sean, when every word you ever utter is about 30 or 40 years ago!
You just don't seem to realise that everybody can see that.
At least I talk or write about in the active and am not slowly moulding away in some long-dead past with 'ghosts of vampires'!
Yes I agree. 'Get a life', that would be a good idea!
David Farrant
First, I am not +Seán Manchester.
Second, I am only responding to regurgitated twaddle posted by Farrant - twaddle usually concerning issues occurring (or not as the case may be) before most people reading this were born.
Third, Farrant only lives in the past. He should try entering the present for a change. Yet how would he do that when it is decades since he had anything to do with Seán Manchester?
Fourth, Farrant's obsession with Seán Manchester is unhealthy and he should seek some help if he can't do anything about it himself.
Fifth, Farrant should try smoking less fags and drinking less alcohol. He might think more clearly if he reduces the toxins in his system.
"Fifth, Farrant should try smoking less fags and drinking less alcohol. He might think more clearly if he reduces the toxins in his system"
Oh dear, "Demonologist"! We are getting catty now aren't we Sean!?
From somebody claiming to be Christian, it might be well for you to remember the words of Jesus.
When He was asked by his disciples 'what defilith a man', He replied that it was 'not that which goes into the mouth that defilith a man' it was what 'came out of it'.
You might do as well to remember that, "Demonologist"!
David Farrant
Would Farrant care to provide chapter and verse of whatever he mistakenly attributes to the Bible?
Sloppy. Lazy. Inaccurate. Wrong.
That's Farrant when it comes to providing so-called quoted text of any sort.
“Would Farrant care to provide chapter and verse of whatever he mistakenly attributes to the Bible?
Sloppy. Lazy. Inaccurate. Wrong.
That's Farrant when it comes to providing so-called quoted text of any sort.”
Yes, of course I will, Sean. The exact quote is:
“But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man”.
You’re obviously not .very well acquainted with the words of Jesus (as neither is the Pudding)
There’s plenty more within the pages of the Bible relating to that. ‘Bearing false witness’ for example.
Oh sorry, forgot! The reference is: Matthew 15 v. 18
David Farrant
Farrant's sorry misuse of scripture is telling. How does it apply to those who are critical of his lying and deceitful ways?
It doesn't.
As for those, like Seán Manchester, who are representatives of God's Church and work with the Holy Spirit, ie ordained and consecrated, Farrant should bare in mind the following:
"Again a voice came to him a second time, 'What God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy'." (Acts 10: 15)
"Farrant's sorry misuse of scripture is telling. How does it apply to those who are critical of his lying and deceitful ways?
It doesn't"
I produced the quote for you Sean, which you were at first ignorant of.
Is that the best you can do [above] to answer it? Jesus made it quite clear that it was what came out of the mouth (from the heart) that defiled a man, not what went into it.
You seemed totally ignorant of this fact, Sean, so I have shown it to you.
The quotation I gave, remember, were the words of Jesus Himself. They were not mine.
David Farrant
Farrant's mindset is remarkable in its constipated contortions.
Putting aside the fact, as anyone outside the tiny Farrant cabal would accept, that I am not Seán Manchester, where is the evidence that I was "ignorant" of Farrant's original attempt to quote from the Bible?
This indicates the messed-up thinking which permeates in what passes as a "brain" in Farrant's head. Farrant's fears, rambling thoughts and constant paranioa pass for "fact" in his feeble mind.
What Farrant really ought to do is inspect the massive plank in his own eye before publishing on the internet what he believes to be the speck of a splinter in someone else's!
They are not my words. They, too, (slightly paraphrased) belong to the same source.
TALK ABOUT CONFUSED!
It was yourself who made the following statement "Demonologist" - YOU and nobody else!
"You said (only a few posts back):
Would Farrant care to provide chapter and verse of whatever he mistakenly attributes to the Bible?
Sloppy. Lazy. Inaccurate. Wrong."
You are now contradicting yurself and saying it wasn't you.
I think we would all like to know who it was then, as it had your name to it!
David Farrant
Why doesn't Farrant get a life?
Like some infant of four years, he has to have the last word on everything and stamps his feet when things don't go his way, which is most of the time.
Yet this an elderly sixty-four-year-old!
Albeit, now suffering from dementia and goodness knows what else.
Post a Comment