Comment on the commenters, whinge and fuss, calumnify, or go off on tangents here.
Monday, November 2, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The Cat's Miaow
What's This All About Then?
For the uninitiated, a primer on the relationship between Bishop Bonkers, David Farrant, and the "Highgate Vampire" is here.
* N * E * W * !
Thanks to our new, exclusive licencing arrangement with artist
Cecil Lamont-Dwiggins, YOU can now enjoy your very own "Bishop Bonkers" tea or coffee mug! Click here for details.
For the uninitiated, a primer on the relationship between Bishop Bonkers, David Farrant, and the "Highgate Vampire" is here.
* N * E * W * !
Thanks to our new, exclusive licencing arrangement with artist
Cecil Lamont-Dwiggins, YOU can now enjoy your very own "Bishop Bonkers" tea or coffee mug! Click here for details.About Me
81 comments:
Sorry I had to put you in the tank, Barb!
Greenwych said...
I thought Catherine--according to Acrimonious--was an innocent young maiden, unable to think for herself and manipulated by all these nasty bad men, both supposedly satanic or supposedly Christian, like a chameleon really. I dont believe it anyway, I know she has a mind of her own and isnt shoved around like that, on the contrary---but it suits the present bonky propoganda to portray her in such an insulting way.
Also as Acrimonious is still persisting in nicknames I may as well continue the trend,
barbara
i havent a clue what the tank is or why you had to put me in it, but no matter,i'll leave you boys and children to continue squabbling
tata
You meet only the best kind of people in the tank!
Is that so Cat?! You could have fooled me! Looks more like a prison cell to me!
David
PS Fancy locking Barbara up as well!
so why have i been locked up, cat didnt give a reason, he is displaying bonkbehaviour doing dickipoggy dictator stuff like that, not that it matters much i suppose it will get read--probably cos at the end of the day I am actually defending Catherine from the charge of being a mindless ninny stooge of bonky--if she has made that decision to defect to him it would not be through his influence--she would have had her reasons---though the funny thing is which does not make sense, and makes her sound docile herself, is that she is allegedly saying that what she did against bonky and for david WAS BECAUSE of davids naughty influence--a case of wanting your cake and eating it methinks!
As David was discussing her part in the dickipoggy copyright stuff the post could have gone there, but no matter,
barbara
You're locked up in here with me cos you slagged (no pun intended!) the bish's wife a wee bit, and we are on strict no-dickipoggy rules here for the time being.
I wonder if you notice that when David posts to "Arminius" he is talking directly to him; i.e. "you are wrong...you claim that...etc."
However "Arminius" does not. His answers address the subject abstractly, i.e. "Farrant claims....Farrant is a liar...etc." It is almost as if a remote 3rd party is answering the question and not Arminius.
Do you think "Arminius" could be a go-between, merely relaying the answers of Bonky to this (and other) forums?
well i didnt mean to slag her, but i see what you mean, i think bonky made her look like a helpless fainting female neeeding a knight in shining armour--like his dashing noble self! to rescue her from the bad men, goodness knows what the real story was but i would have hit him with my rolling pin for making me look such a ninny---but at the end of the day they seem to suit each other and be happy in their respective roles, as hubby and wifey-- so the story cant be as far-fetched as it sounds.
But it does make me get the impression that bonky has always to be 'right' in any situation, conjugal or otherwise--and what on earth did his wife make of his Diana dickipoggy dreams?
But I was talking about Catherine and, for what its worth, trying to give her the credit of having a mind of her own
tata old bean barbara greenwych
So much supposition and so much presumption.
Farrant's ex-partner is not in contact with the Bishop. This has been stated by others on numerous occasions. She did contact the Bishop initially to apologise for her behaviour during the three years she was involved with Farrant. She also posted some Christian icons on his wall, which I and others on Facebook have seen. But that is it. He has three thousand friends on Facebook and receives messages of support every day.
The Bishop's wife is extremely intelligent and certainly not a weak person. She very much wanted her story told of how she became entangled in witchcraft after graduating with a university degree. She has said as much on various broadcasts. Her version of events in From Satan To Christ has been publicly verified by every member of the coven (except of course the two coven leaders who have since gone underground). She explains in her story how even someone like herself can be taken in by all that nonsense and how, like masonry, the secrets are layers of deceit for something much worse, ie diabolism. The Bishop happened to be around to help her escape the clutches of that coven before something much worse happened to her. None of which makes her a "maiden in distress" or "weak." It makes her a vulnerable human being as we all are at times.
To "Arminious": -"These threats to frame the Bishop were the origin of the 39-year-old "feud."
The "feud" is between two people, and if you're not one of them, how can you know what the "origin" was?
And what do you mean by "origin"? Are you saying this incident was the chronological beginning of the feud, or the "basis" i.e. the main "reason" for the feud?
To David and "Arminious":
Forgive me for shoving my oar in, gents but Amarminious dropped a bomb by saying the "Bradish" incident is "where the so-called "feud" originates", and I'm very curious. The Bradish thing happened in 1970. To be blunt, Sean got punched in the nose and accused of trying to keep you behind bars. Ten years later you're both on tape sharing tea and having conversations that, even if highly edited, aren't anything remotely resembling things that "undercover researchers" might say while trying to gain information. WTF happened?
Note: Most of my own comments made in "Confuse Me Not" have been moved here to the Tank to give the boys more room to stretch.
It is a matter of record that Farrant shared nothing. It is also a matter of public record that the Bishop was operating covertly when he spoke with Farrant in the period being referred to. It makes sense when you view the larger picture.
Farrant and Bonky both claim that any contact between them after 1970 is explained by the "I was operating covertly" excuse. It doesn't wash, Arminious. They are each heard on tape interacting in such a way (even if highly edited) that FAR exceeds the bounds "playing a role" would require.
Couple of points:
1. Arminious - come on the podcast. Please! You know you want to and I am really keen to interview somebody who died years ago. We could leave Highgate well alone.
2. Lie detectors are unreliable and are dependent upon the subjective results of the tester. You can cheat them as past experiments have shown. Clench yer bottom cheeks!
I love this blog. It makes me proud to be British!
"Arminious - come on the podcast. Please! You know you want to and I am really keen to interview somebody who died years ago. We could leave Highgate well alone"
Hi Trystan,
And welcome to Cat's 'jail', or confinement box', or whatever he wants to call it! He's already locked Barbara in here, but lets me visit her. That is if he doesn't decide yo 'throw away the keys' once I'm in here, so I won't be able to get out again!
Must be serious. Seriously, that's a very good idea to ask 'Ariminous' to be interviewed on your Podcast. 'Ariminous' has made it abundantly clear that the 'bonky one' will never participate, but as 'Ariminous' is his 'own person', surly there is nothing from preventing him?! He could speak about me till his heart's content, and I give you immunity in advance from any 'legal threats' (from myself, at least).
So go for it, 'Ariminous'. I would support you on this one!
Could be the Podcast of the century. Well, depending on 'Ariminous"!
David (Farant)
I remain blocked on the Righteous Indignation Podcast on Facebook.
I have not attempted to post on Swale's website forum and do not intend to be bullied into it now by those posting on this blog.
If I am to be "my own man" I shall decide what I do and where and when I want to do it. Except, of course, where I am blocked.
I got absolutely nowhere raising questions about the interview Farrant gave on Swale's Righteous Indignation Podcast Facebook group, so let me put the same questions to Farrant on here where he seems cornered in a jail of his own making.
Farrant claimed there were reports in the press about a vampire at Highgate Cemetery in the late 1960s when, in fact, there was no press coverage until 27 February 1970. There was no haunting of any sort reported in the press before January 1970. This was an attempt by him to explain why he entered the graveyard to supposedly investigate the supernatural being in 1969.
He also failed to explain how his hovering corpse-like ghost is any more plausible than a demonic undead. Such unsubstantiated claims as the phenomenon at Highgate Cemetery in the late 1960s being "a harmless spirit" which bizarrely required him casting "a protective circle" presents something of an anomaly.
If "harmeless" why did Farrant need to protect himself?
He also claimed in the interview that he wore a "Celtic cross" during his "investigating." While there is plently of published material showing Farrant wielding a large Latin cross, wearing a crucifix and sometimes a Catholic rosary, there is nothing revealing him in possession of a Celtic cross. There is nothing very Celtic about the items Farrant displayed in his publicity photographs at the time, and nothing much wiccan either.
Did Farrant not claim to be a practitioner of wicca? A "high priest" of witchcraft no less! Not that many other wiccans/witches would agree with his self-description. Even so, what was he doing employing Christian crosses for his own personal protection?
The lame excuse he offered that the stake he carried was not for impaling the vampire is a relatively recent one which was only heard from 1991 when he self-published his first pamphlet. Prior to which the sharpened piece of wood was for sticking into the undead's heart, as told by him to police and newspaper reporters.
This man even had one journalist, Barrie Simmons, accompany him on a stake-brandishing vampire hunt in October 1970 for an article published in the London Evening News newspaper which includes photographs of Farrant holding his cross and stake in each hand to stalk the vampire with no "white cord" to accommodate the making of a "protective circle" in sight.
The argument put forward by Farrant that because Christopher Lee played Count Dracula in films it does not make him a vampire is completely irrelevant and yet another smokescreen to mask what really happened in August 1970 and the reconstruction of his "vampire hunt" on BBC television which followed in October 1970. This was filmed solely because of Farrant's arrest and to demonstrate what he was doing when arrested. Farrant had been on remand at Brixton prison during some of the interim before the reconstruction was filmed, but it clearly showed him stalking a vampire with a cross and stake with no "white cord" in evidence. Farrant made no mention of any "white cord" until 1991 - twenty-one years later!
Arminious you were invited to appear on a Podcast, not post on a website. Why not do it? You clearly have a lot to say. Imagine being able to say it directly to Farrant. I'm sure Trystan will agree to guarantee your privacy. He may even have some manner of "voice changer" he can apply.
So anyone who observes glaring anomalies in an interview published on the internet and makes a comment on a forum to that effect is now expected to be interviewed themselves?
How many other people who commented have been asked to be interviewed? Not too many I daresay.
Why doesn't Baldry's Cat consent to be interviewed on Swale's podcast? His interest in these matters far outweighs mine.
Believe me, if it was not for anti-Bishop blogs like the Hunchback's and Baldry's Cat's there would be no need for me to post anything about these matters or create balancing blogs such as I have.
Yes, I suppose I could go on Swale's podcast but it just wouldn't be the same without you, Arminious. I wish you'd reconsider. What if we got Kupelman's to send you two dozen bagels in exchange for promotional consideration (i.e. you and David mention their slogan "I'm keen for Kupelman's" on the air), would that help sweeten the pot?
Vambery, to be perfectly honest I'm not massively interested in the ins and outs of the Highgate case. You met who, where and when. As I'm sure you recall, I initially asked your associate Sean Manchester to appear first of all but he declined. That was when we approached David, and I thought it was only fair that - as we were discussing Highgate - I put at least one of Sean's allegations to him. I appreciate that you seem very concerned about the minutiae of the Highgate affair but neither myself or our listeners are particularly interested as to whether so and so had a white cord. Our listeners are more interested in a general overview of the case.
I have only asked you because you appear to be very well versed in vampire hunting. I would be very keen to hear what you have to say about vampires in a historical context and the methods of hunting them. Should you wish to discuss Highgate then I see no problems in presenting your version of events and the DIRECT issues raised by David. What we don't want is to go off down the garden path and into the bushes beyond as to whether David was wearing a celtic cross or a pink lyrca bikini.
"Should you wish to discuss Highgate then I see no problems in presenting your version of events and the DIRECT issues raised by David"
I agree with that Trystan. I am certainly not going to waste my time here answering the same 'cut and pasted' trivialities about Highgate which you disallowed on your Blog; although having said that, I would welcome your suggestion - rather invitation - that 'Ariminous' do an interview with Righteous Indignation Radio so he could put forward his views. He is 'his own person' as he has stressed here, so I would not imagine he would have any trouble in appearing in person, would he?
I do agree though, that he should stick with the points I made about the Highgate case in my interview, and not introduce other irrevelancies which simply don't hold people's interest. Well, certainly not my own, anyway!
So I for one would be most interested to see if "Ariminous" will actually take up this challenge, and adopt the chance to speak on his own authority. If anything, he should be greatly honoured!
David Farant
Why wouldn't it be the same without me? Look at the facts.
When I posted comments on Swale's Righteous Indignation Facebook group I was blocked from commenting further or even viewing the group.
Baldry's Cat would have a far easier ride, I suspect, without any subsequent banning. I feel he should go for it. I am sure Swale will agree to guarantee Baldry's Cat's privacy. He may even have some manner of "voice changer" he can apply.
Swale says that neither he nor his listeners are "particularly interested as to whether so and so had a white cord" and that his "listeners are more interested in a general overview of the case."
The general overview exists already for those who want to acquaint themselves with it. The issue of the white cord is of particular interest, I would have thought, because it can be clearly demonstrated to be a revisionist piece of fabricated nonsense. I thought that was what a sceptics interview examination is all about, ie looking for the cracks in claims made by those who say they have seen irrational phenomena?
I have not claimed to be "well versed in vampire hunting" as suggested by Swale who, even if I it was the case, could ask any number of other people onto his podcast who make such claims.
Swale says he would like to hear what I have "to say about vampires in a historical context and the methods of hunting them." Yet Swale prevented me discussing these issues on his Facebook group by blocking me. Swale has apparently now also taken to referring to the Bishop on his group discussion board in an identical derogatory and abusive manner as does Farrant.
And I am expected to consent to be interviewed by such a person?
Farrant won't even address anything I have raised here and on Swale's Facebook group concerning his interview, yet challenges me to replicate the procedure all over again on an obscure podcast.
My interest is challenging the lies Farrant circulates in every medium he can find. I have nothing to discuss with those who dismiss the supernatural and try to mock those who believe in it.
All Farrant has to do is draw a line under his "feud" and cease his daily abuse against the Bishop and company to stop me from posting and blogging to reveal facts he would rather I kept quiet about.
Oh come on Arminius, you have been dead since 1913 and may have even been the inspiration for the character of Van Helsing. That's why I want you and no other vampire hunter. Quite a set of claims.
I just want to know why David, Bonky, "Eggmanne", etc. were all clandestinely tape recording each other as early as 1970? It seems odd.
I am every bit as alive as Baldry's Cat which the Hunchback was accused of sacrificing in a witchcraft ceremony at Highgate Wood. It was apparently a stray the hunched one is supposed to have sacrificed and not Baldry's Cat. Nine lives or not, the original Baldry's Cat must surely be dead from natural causes by now. Yet he apparently manages to post here. Is it any more strange than me posting? I suppose not.
The Bishop was not tape-recording anyone in 1970. Perhaps he should have done. The Eggman was in the business of secretly recording the Hunchback as far back as 1969. When the Bishop eventually recorded the Hunchback for an interview some seven or so years later it was with the hunched one's full knowledge and consent.
Only The Hunchback and the Eggman were in the business of making clandestine tape-recordings.
"I just want to know why David, Bonky, "Eggmanne", etc. were all clandestinely tape recording each other as early as 1970? It seems odd".
Its really very simple, Cat: we didn't trust each other!
David (Farrant)
also tape recorders werent so easy to hide then, i would have thought they were quite big and noisy, also how do you prove whose the voice is? sorry to be the devil's advocate david! also why is everybody in the tank or closet or whatever it is now?
barbara
For once I would agree with the Hunchback.
Listening to (or reading) the various accounts, it is quite obvious that there was distrust on all sides.
And not without reason.
Swale says I "may have even been the inspiration for the character of Van Helsing" and that is why he wants me "and no other vampire hunter."
Again, I remind Swale that I have made no reference to my being a vampire hunter.
The character is referred to in Stoker's novel as a separate entity to Van Helsing. Indeed, it is Van Helsing who talks of his "good friend Arminius." So how can they be one and the same person?
The real person who Stoker might have heard of (or even met) by that name, was not a vampire hunter.
So the grounds for selecting me for the Inquisition above all others is spurious from start to finish.
Furthermore, Swale places himself in Farrant's camp which makes him biased. Evidence for this is the fact that Swale has published a term of abuse for the Bishop only those in the Farrant camp employ.
I didn't offer to arrange a "lie detector" test, it was Don Ecker. No matter. Neither you nor "Amarinious" will ever take one, I can virtually guarantee that!
Arminius...I hate to tell you this, but Baldry's Cat is not really a cat. Occam's Razor suggests he or she is a human being. So, given that Arminius Vambery is recorded as having died in the first half of the 20th century, can I assume you are posting under a nickname?
I should also point out that I never suggested Van Helsing and Arminius Vambery were one and the same. I merely pointed out that some people have suggested the real Vambery may have been an inspiration - whether directly or indirectly - to Stoker.
Here's the deal Arminius - play fair and I'll unblock you from Facebook as well as your IP from our website.
"I didn't offer to arrange a "lie detector" test, it was Don Ecker. No matter. Neither you nor "Amarinious" will ever take one, I can virtually guarantee that!"
Sorry Cat! But I can't always be expected to get it right. There's reams of this stuff to remember.
But being an ex-cop he might be able to arrange one, or at least give some advice.
But don't you worry,I'm quite prepared to answer the 4 questions I suggested for myself. Whether Bonky would answer his, however, is completely another matter!
David Farrant
Et tu, Trystan? Barbara is also a notorious unbeliever in the power of feline spirits. As I have explained to her countless times, if dogs can drink beer, cats can type using paws!
Why would I need to take a lie detector test?
I am someone commenting like the rest of you.
The only difference is that I am not a supporter or sympathiser of the Hunchback and owe allegiance to the Bishop.
That is the unique quality which marks me out as different to the rest of those currently posting comments here.
Here's the deal for Swale. While he continues to show bias in favour of the Hunchback and employ terms of abuse used by him to the detriment of the Bishop, I have no desire whatsoever to comment on his Facebook group or indeed his website. The fact that I cannot view the former is probably a blessing. I suggest Swale starts taking his own advice and tries to "play fair" for a change.
The lie detector test issue is covered on another topic. I note, however, the Hunchback will not accept the questions I have posted and instead wants to write the questions himself that he should answer. Unfortunately for him, that is not how it works.
The Bishop has always said that he will answer any question related to the black magic threats allegedly made to Mrs Bradish in 1970 and the ensuing court case. The reason being is that these are what is at the root of the so-called "feud."
But will the Hunchback do the same? No, he will not. He wants to write both the questions the Bishop answers, many of them totally irrelevant to the issue, and the ones he will answer.
Here's two spirited yet slaggy posts that go straight to the Tank, from a person calling themselves "Sluggy Freelance":
Armi and his sock puppets were also banned from my website forum - The Sluggite Zone. Later, Monicruel
Ignore him. Armi isn't a real person anyway. He's a cartoon character, soon to vanish back into the inkwell. I'm shocked no-one realized it. Later, Monicruel
That just about sums up the level of accusations, doesn't it?
Well, some might say that celebrating Farrant's misunderstanding of how comment moderation works on this particular blog as a "victory" for yourself is equally petty, Arminious.
I should add that I have no idea who or how many were posting as "anonymous". If one of those were the bishop, he has indeed been effectively "banned".
I see no indication of my "celebrating" anything, much less celebrating a "victory" of any sort.
Farrant needed to be reminded of his own premature celebration of a non-existent victory over something that had not happened.
The Bishop does not post here and has never posted here. If he did it would be under his name.
Baldry's Cat says: "I have no idea who or how many were posting as Anonymous. If one of those were the bishop, he has indeed been effectively banned."
Precisely my point.
Farrant claimed again and again on this blog that Anonymous was the Bishop. Now he is claiming that I am. All of which is a nonsense when you read what Baldry's Cat has stated about who is banned.
I see in the Hell Fire thread that you two hard cases would deny orphans and such the chance to get a bit of charity money. Cold. Very cold!
Oh, I also noticed a recurring theme here; you'd both like to end the feud "on your own terms". You each require the other to admit guilt and come meet you in your own home. This will never happen.
The Bishop has made no such demands and the only condition he ever imposed is the absence of all press and publicity. He does not recognise a feud as such because that requires a situation where two parties are fighting. There are various individuals on both sides of the argument who are making allegations and counter-allegations. This is not a feud. The Bishop nonetheless recognises that a vendetta has ensued for some considerable time against him, his family and those in support of him.
Well if that's the only condition, then this meeting could have been arranged decades ago.
Farrant and the bishop could meet at a car park somewhere on the M3. Or in the lobby of an obscure chain hotel. Drivers (doubling as "witnesses") would be the bishop's wife and Patsy. No press, no publicity.
Really not difficult at all. Unless you have two people who'd rather not meet and carry on fighting.
That has only ever been the condition. Research into where this has been discussed on forums in the past will confirm it to be the case.
Personally, I don't see any need for a meeting. Given Farrant is a cripple with a gammy leg, dodgy foot, bad back and let's not forget the hump, there is no way he is going limp further than his local off license up the road from where he lives.
All it would take is for Farrant to show some indication that he wants to end the bad blood between them and to stop posting libel.
I believe he doesn't want to end it and will take his malice with him to the grave and, who knows, perhaps even beyond?
The Bishop, however, knows how to deal with that eventuality!
I disagree. Alekseev tells me that people tend to say unkind things on a blog or forum that they would never say to each other in person. It follows that a face-to-face meeting between The Terrible Two would be much less antagonistic than imagined. And perhaps you missed this detail; Farrant would be driven to the meeting in private vehicle, no need for him to walk.
I cannot gainsay the Bishop with anything other than what has already been established for most of the past decade by him, namely that an open invitation exists for Farrant to visit him in private at his retreat. The Bishop would prefer no others were present but, as we have seen, is amenable in that regard. His non-negotiable condition is that the press are not involved in any way - during before or after - and that such a meeting would remain private between the individuals concerned.
Yes, but the "at his retreat" part is not OK, do you understand? They won't go to each others home. Find a neutral meeting place.
That is all that is on offer from the Bishop as far as any face to face meeting goes, and nothing you say will alter that fact.
What does Farrant imagine will happen to him? It is a large retreat in a very public spot on a clifftop. If he is afraid he could always bring someone along with him, but not a journalist or someone connected with the media. If he remains unwilling to accept this, but wants to put an end to this perceived "feud," rather than allow it continue to the end of his days, he should contact the Bishop.
If Farrant does not want to see an end to it and is content to go to his grave "feuding," he should continue as he has been doing for goodness knows how many years.
Every time I send a message to the Bishop about this sort of thing he asks me to stop posting as it feeds Farrant's insatiable appetite to stoke an imaginary "feud" by claiming that whoever questions or challenges him is the Bishop. I want this to happen no more than the Bishop who invites Farrant to enter dialogue, if that is what he really wants, on his Reconciliation blog at:
http://pathofreconciliation.blogspot.com/2009/11/path.html
This is where my intervention on the matter ends.
I don't see anything on that "reconciliation" blog that invites Farrant. Just a lot of maudlin poetry. I reckon it is meant to be read "between the lines"? It might even be some kind of secret cipher Farrant and the bishop employed in ye olden days to communicate with each other on the sly.
I see nothing between the lines and everything in them.
Farrant has no intention of reconciling anything.
Without his hate campaign against Seán Manchester what else would he have to occupy his otherwise empty existence?
Incidentally, the correct URL for Bishop Seán Manchester's blog is:
http://pathofreconciliation.blogspot.com
Thanks for the changing of the guard. I was getting tired of Arminius. And I actually wondered if Farrant was the one propagating the feud, keeping it going, forcing you to "balance" his lies. Then I saw this:
http://tinyurl.com/yeyg6gm
It's typical. A young man, a boy really, mentions his interest in vampires on his Myspace blog. Down swoops "The HighGate Vampire" (the bishop, or someone permitted by the bishop to use his copyrighted book as their icon) with a load of cut and paste about the evils of David Farrant.
So you do nurture the feud in this way, don't you?
It certainly isn't Seán Manchester who has his own MySpace account.
I can find nothing inaccurrate in anything stated by the commentator who I believe, and this is only from memory because I have seen that post before, was responding to a load of misinformation about Farrant and the Highgate case which Benjamin has since removed.
The VRS member should also remove his/her response as it now makes no sense without the original.
The "feud" exists in the minds of those who see it as such, but where misrepresentation of the work of the VRS occurs (due to Farrant's nonsense being referred to) error will obviously be set right.
I'll send a message to the VRS member responsible and advise them of the changed situation on that page.
Here's a blog in which a "cut and paste" bashing of Farrant was posted after the author simply *mentioned* his name in connection with the Highgate Vampire legend:
http://tinyurl.com/yf5ldwl
Someone's been very busy feeding the flames of this feud, and it ain't myself!
I cannot comment on anonymous posts, but when you say you aren't feeding the flames of this feud you are quite wrong, and you know it.
You are providing the daily opportunity for Farrant plus one or two of his associates to post constant abuse and lies about Seán Manchester. In that regard you are feeding the flames of the abuse and, moreover, fanning them by adding your own material and derogatory merchandise to the mix.
You might not be the only person feeding the feud, but you are certainly one of them.
In all honesty, would you say you are helping or hindering matters with a blog of this sort? You have nothing to do with the contentious issues at dispute and have probably met neither party. Your only angle seems to be one of ridicule which obviously keeps the feud alive.
Of course I'm helping keep the feud alive. But it ain't my creation. It's yours and Farrant's. If not for your batty little row, *I* wouldn't exist. The public thinks it's the berries, a real comedy. Can't blame them, really!
You are playing Farrant's infantile game by assuming my identity falsely to fuel the feud.
You are dancing to Farrant's tune. That is why so few visit or post here.
Oh lighten up. Some dancing would be an improvement here. Your man is acting like a pompous stuffed shirt in Gough's forum. Can't you fix him?
You want to turn everything into a big joke provided you are not the butt and remain entirely anonymous.
Some dance. Some joke.
Criticism, ridicule, satire, publicity, people not taking your man seriously etc. -- that is what comes with publishing "best selling" books about staking vampires and becoming a public figure in a "world famous" vampire case. Being an inveterate drama queen and humourless prig only makes things worse for him. Your man chose to be in the public eye. He worked hard to attain it. It was not forced on him. He is not some reluctant Byronic hero. Stop complaining.
If you were more familiar with the facts you would know that Seán Manchester was reluctantly drawn onto the public stage and does not enjoy the attention he receives.
This he stated at the time and has since reiterated in his published works. He had no real choice because the case which flung him into the limelight entered the public domain without his help.
That's exactly how it is with me, sir! I didn't want any attention at all! Public interest in this subject forced me to put up this blog! I am a very private person!
Public interest in this subject was around before you were.
You are not the person anyone is interested in because you had nothing to do with the case. Whereas Seán Manchester was at its centre and led the investigation from beginning to end.
You are a "private person" and remain so because you are totally anonymous. Seán Manchester is not.
You put up this blog because you made a choice to join Farrant's vendetta and to merchandise material designed to insult and cause offence. There might be a wider agenda, but what is obvious is the perverse pleasure you derive from attacking someone you do not know and fuelling what you try to convince yourself is a feud.
The principal elements of your blog are harassment, abuse, stalking and defamation.
No the principal elements of my blog are humour, satire, and comedy. But you're right, I did not create and publicise a ridiculous account of staking a vampire, your man did, and he should learn to take what comes with that.
And you perhaps should learn to take what comes with harassment, abuse, stalking and publishing libel.
Go for it, Bishop.
I am not Bishop Seán Manchester.
I am not a published author.
I am not a public figure.
But I support the person who is all three.
As do a great many other people!
Baldry's Cat says "go for it" from the safety of total anonymity.
Maybe he could advise how the bishop or anyone else could "go for it" when the offender remains hidden behind a computer screen?
There's no laws being broken here, it's all in fun, so I say again "go for it" not-the-bishop; either take legal action against this site or shut your gob.
Speaking of gobs, yours must be red, as Farrant is making friends on Gough's forum and there's not a thing you can do about it. No newspaper cuttings and no cut and paste rants allowed. Being unable to tell the forum members that David is actually an evil satanic force must be awful for you. Have a cookie.
What are you droning on about? I have not had time to read the forum you mention and am not a member.
Your cry of "it's all fun" is typical of bullies and stalkers too cowardly to come out in the open and reveal themselves.
Your blog is nothing more than a platform for malice to be posted against Seán Manchester. You and Farrant might find such activity fun, but many others do not.
It's sick and depraved.
I suppose an eccentric public figure with no sense of humour and an inability to laugh at his own foibles would misinterpret this site as "stalking". That seems to be the case here!
DEAD GIVEAWAY!
"Your cry of "it's all fun" is typical of bullies and stalkers too cowardly to come out in the open and reveal themselves".
You have 'hit the nail right on the head', Sean, with the words . . . "too cowardly to come out in te open and reveal themselves".
Talk about a subconscious betrayal of your own guilt "Demomologist"!
David Farrant
Is Farrant completely nuts?
What is he babbling on about now?
Seán Manchester DOES post on forums, boards and blogs!
When he posts he does so under his own name and true identity.
Baldry's Cat might want to take a leaf out of his book.
Then again, I guess not because it will never happen.
Farrant, on the other hand, will ALWAYS use his real name because he lives to see it published somewhere, no matter where, being the publicity junkie he is!
Dennisologist,
You whinge several times of Baldry's Cat hiding behind anonymity...yet don't mention that you are the International Secretary of the VRS and perpetuate the feud through your alternating pseudonyms...even borrowing my "Overseer" moniker at one point!
Such blatant hypocrisy.
As to hate campaigns, try The Hunchback of Muswell Hill on for size.
You reap what you sow.
That might be worth remembering.
I am not as conciliatory as Bishop Seán Manchester.
Farrant says "bonky" and "bonkers."
Fortean Times staff, Carol, Arminius and others, like myself, say "hunchback." So what?
Farrant and his pack of stalking abusers dish it out, so they should be prepared to get something back.
Hypocrisy? Naugh! Try just deserts.
At least those who refer to "humpy" as a hunchback haven't cashed in with comics, mugs, T-shirts and calendars.
I believe you, Anthony, feature in the comics. That must be nice for you.
Hi Dennis,
Firstly, as the International Secretary of the VRS, you should really be showing more decorum. I mean you're working for a "professional" organisation, right?
Even though the Bishop acknowledges that you do not speak on his behalf, you're still a rep in some shape or form.
You bring down the man and the organisation with such silliness, not to mention the dodgy tactics you employ.
As the Bishop would tell you, such "just desserts" are not meant to be handed out by other men. Prohibitions against revenge and all that, you see.
And yes, you're right. I do feature in the comics. As a pig. And a Manchester supporter.
You're not above such childishness yourself, though. After all, you did write a post on your rip-off message board, using my Overseer moniker, which featured a pic of a warthog, as well.
You're just as bad as each other, really.
You, Anthony, are deciding on my identity and running with it.
I prefer, like most internet users, not to confirm my identity because I speak as an individual with my own individual thoughts. I am representing one person and one person only. Me.
I might work at a bank or for a shop. If I did, which I don't, would I be representing the bank or the shop on this blog? Of course I wouldn't. The idea is ludicrous, so bin that one!
You do yourself no favours, Anthony, by engaging in infantile banter of this kind, but then I keep forgetting how very much younger you are to everyone else on this blog. That is not a criticism. It is just a fact and one which makes me wonder why you haven't got much better things to do with your time.
For my part, I don't like the malicious lies constantly being repeated by Farrant and his cronies year in and year out. Unlike you, I am much closer to all this and can clearly see what is going on. You have no idea the extraordinary lengths Farrant goes to in order to circulate his malice. He sends his hateful tracts to people he does not know but suspects know Seán Manchester. Even the latter's own wife and in-laws have received Farrant's malicious mail. The most recent recipient is a close friend of Seán Manchester whose address Farrant tracked down in order to send poisonous pamphlets to in Essex. This man was in half a mind to report his receipt of "The SeanGate Tapes" pamphlet to Royal Mail as it violates the UK's Malicious Mail Act, but Seán Manchester talked him out of it.
If I received something similar from Farrant, I would definitely report him and have him prosecuted.
Hi Dennis,
So you "prefer, like most internet users, not to confirm my identity because I speak as an individual with my own individual thoughts."
No you don't.
You're the International Secretary of the Vampire Research Society.
Despite your criticism of me not being directly involved in the Case, you have not disclosed exactly what your involvement was, either.
You repeat the same schtick on multiple forums. You adopt a variety of pseudonyms. You harass and malign people critical of the Case.
Despite your desire for anonymity, you had no qualm in using a private e-mail to the VRS to publicly broadcast my name via a false medium, that is your misappropriation of my "Overseer" moniker - which, you in turn, criticised me for using as it (in your eyes) demeans the title of a Bishop.
Such schizophrenic (at best), malicious (at worst) tactics are one of the primary reasons people gravitate towards your arch-nemesis, David.
He, in turn, has used this to aid himself, financially.
On top, of that, the issue of David repeating "lies" is undermined by your very own lack of authority in the Case.
He at least speaks on his own behalf. With what authority do you speak? How can you claim such intimate knowledge of the Case...without even disclosing your own, specific involvement?
Merely saying you're "closer to all this" doesn't really cut it.
You claim that I "have no idea the extraordinary lengths Farrant goes to in order to circulate his malice."
On the other hand, I have certainly seen the "extraordinary lengths" you have gone to circulate your own brand of "malice" against myself.
What acts of malice has Farrant perpetrated against you?
You admit that if you "received something similar from Farrant, I would definitely report him and have him prosecuted."
Indicating, of course, that you haven't received any such thing yourself.
How about speaking on your own behalf for a change?
Farrant "speaks on his own behalf"?
What possible weight does that carry?
Farrant colluded to fake a ghost story in the press with Tony forty years ago. Tony has confirmed this and, moreover, secretly recorded their conversations at the time.
Farrant involved two friends in his hoax and used their addresses to send fraudulent correspondence to newspapers. These two collaborators are Nava and Kenny. If I do not include their surnames it is only because "Badry's Cat" does not allow it where private individuals are concerned. It's rather a shame he didn't adopt this policy earlier when completely innocent third parties were being falsely identified by Farrant and others.
I haven't received anything in the post from Farrant because he has no idea where I live, despite my location being a few miles from his own address. Once Farrant discovers someone's address they start to receive his malicious mail about Seán Manchester. When I say "someone" I mean someone close to Seán Manchester who Farrant does not personally know or has ever had contact with. Like, for example, an address Farrant learned from an excommunicated and perverted prelate who has collaborated with Farrant to try and cause mischief for Seán Manchester. The private address belongs to an attendee to Seán Manchester's ordination and also his episcopal consecration. The occupants have now started receiving unsolicited and unwelcome packages of libellous abuse about Seán Manchester from Farrant. The recipient is apparently still deciding what to do about it, but is doing nothing to inflame the situation on Seán Manchester's advice.
I speak only for myself and express opinions of my own not necessarily shared by everyone else, including Seán Manchester, but I am known to the latter. I have never met or spoken with Farrant. However, I have seen material evidence of the sort of abuse Seán Manchester has been subjected to over the years.
You, Anthony, have a bee in your bonnet about what you regard as someone "outing" you when you were already using your real name on various websites, including Amazon. This has now become petty and boring. You are starting to sound a tad obsessive.
You also try to make these matters about you. It is not about you, Anthony. It's not even about me and I was there. Get a grip!
"You also try to make these matters about you. It is not about you, Anthony. It's not even about me and I was there. Get a grip!"
Yes. We all know you were there Sean, there is no dispute about that. But you are here too NOW using a pathetic alias . . . "Demonologist".
You might be fooling Anthony, "Demonologist", but you sure ain't fooling anybody else!
Anthony niavely says that I could be using Gareth in a similar fashion. Anthony truly gives a very bad example here. Why? Because for one thing, Gareth posts his own name to everything he writes.
For another he is an established author and picyures of him have appeared frequently onthe Internet, including on myNlog.
Gareth really exists "Demomologist", whilst you do not - xceept as an invented name by yourself, Sean.
Anthony is too niave to see that, but I guess that is really his problem.
So you are right to accuse him of being niave in thatrespect Sean.
David Farrant
Gareth exists all right. Though he doesn't have a computer and we have to rely on Farrant's version of what appears under Gareth's name. I do not doubt that Gareth is an ally of Farrant and lends his support where he can, which includes posting malicious items on Farrant's behalf to friends of Seán Manchester from a different postal area of London to that of Muswell Hill. Patsy does the same thing by posting Farrant's unsolicited items from Feltham. Knowing what I do about the pair of them, nothing would surprise me. They are both dupes of Farrant and when you catch sight of either of them that is very easy to believe. One is an archetypal witch in the medieval sense and the other is an unattractive (I'm being charitable with that word) apologist for Satanists everywhere.
Others who Farrant uses and who also use Farrant to vent their hatred of Seán Manchester employ multiple false names and identities. If I was to list just a fraction of the many false identities Farrant's tiny handful of collaborators use it would fill this entire webpage!
"If I was to list just a fraction of the many false identities Farrant's tiny handful of collaborators use it would fill this entire webpage!"
Well, why don't you give it a try Sean? I don't mind in the least.
That is, if you want to make an even bigger fool of yourself!
David Farrant
There is only one fool present here: the Devil's own!
How can I list anything if it is not allowed on this blog to post the full names of non public figures by stricture of "Baldry's Cat"? Farrant is well aware of this prohibition which is why he sneakily asked for the names to be revealed. Nice try, but, once again, no mythological white cord to accompany Farrant's home-made stake and cross comprising two twigs tied together by a shoelace.
I crease up every time I see that article in the Evening News, 16 October 1970, which includes pictures of Farrant prancing about in Highgate Cemetery with a cross made out of two sticks held together with a shoelace and a stake that he had obviously just picked up from among fallen tree debris. Full marks to the journalist Barry Simmons who accompanied Farrant, and the newspaper's staff photographer. Had the vampire emerged he would have probably expired of laughter!
A list comprising only the forenames of those using multi-identities in support of Farrant on the internet would therefore be completely meaningless!
Post a Comment