David & Bonky's "history" confuses me no end. I sketched up a quick "time line" of their "relationship". I wonder if David and "Arminius" might care to help me sort it out:
1967 - David & Bonky first contact
1969 - David & Bonky first meetings
1970 - David's first arrest
1970 - David and Bonky joint TV/news interviews
1970 - The Bradish Incident - origin of "the feud"?
1971 - Bonky investigates Satanism
1972 - David's second arrest
1973 - David & Bonky "Horned God" fire incident
1974 - David's 3rd arrest, prison sentence
1975 - Bonky visits David in prison
1976 - David released from prison
1976 - First "magical duel"
1978 - David & Bonky "sword duel"
1982 - Bonky stakes "vampire spider"
1984 - Second "magical duel"
1985 - Bonky's first book
1986 - Bonky & David's last face to face meeting
1991 - David's first book
1992 - David & Bonky "truce"
1996 - "Truce" ends
Comments in this thread are closed to all except David & Arminius. Let's see what happens without the constant slagging from others to distract them. Maybe a breakthrough? I doubt it. But it'll be entertaining.
David & Bonky's "history" confuses me no end. I sketched up a quick "time line" of their "relationship". I wonder if David and "Arminius" might care to help me sort it out:
27 comments:
I think that is all basically accurate in essence Cat.
Don't like the look of that 'holding tank' though with the bars around it. Brings back unpleasant memories!
David Farrant
I understand there was a lot of animosity regarding the "Bradish" incident. Yet I see years of "cooperation" or at least tolerance between you two followed it. How do you account for that?
That's a long story Cat - it really is!
Very simply: In 1970 JB stood bail for me over the 'vampire hunting' charge (on which I was later acquitted). Following this he received at least two threatening letters telling him he must 'revoke my bail'. There was also a threatening phone call to his (JB's) wife and two men (one of whom JB clearly recognised from Highgate) asking to speak to myself.
JB became enraged over all this 'bonky nonsense' and went down to face the two people concerned the next day. A scuffle ensued and JB found himself in Court charged with assuat; he was exhorerated but the other person who brought the charges was bound over to keep the peace on penalaty of 200 pounds and warned not to contact JM's wife again. He didn't!
As you point out Cat all this occurred in (November) 1970.
All a part of history now, I know, but its all still on record.
David Farrant
CORRECTIONS:
1970 - Hunchback & Bonky first contact in late February.
1970 - Hunchback & Bonky first met at Highgate Cemetery in late February. The meeting was recorded by the Hampstead & Highgate Express and a photograph of the meeting appeared on the front page of that newspaper's March 6th issue.
1970 - Hunchback's first arrest on August 17th.
1970 - Hunchback and Bonky separately filmed TV interviews on March 13th for a programme called Today on Thames Television.
1970 - Bonky was not fined for Bradish calls, as claimed by Hunchback. Bradish was found guilty, not exhonerated as also claimed by Hunchback. Criminal compensation was paid to the Bishop as a result of guilty verdict. Bradish later accepted that black magic calls were made by Hunchback which defence evidence in court had led to the temporary binding over of the Bishop who had brought about the prosecution. The Hunchback boasted to a number of people immediately after the case that he had made the calls. He has always refused a lie detector test on this matter.
1971 - Bonky investigates Satanism at an Islington church, having been formally investigating the occult since 1967 when he became president of the BOS.
1972 - Hunchback's second arrest on Hallowe'en in a Barnet churchyard.
1973 - Hunchback's manufactured "Horned God" fire incident for publicity in a Sunday newspaper.
1974 - Hunchback's 3rd arrest, prison sentence of four years and eight months.
1975 - Bonky did not visit Hunchback in prison during this sentence, as claimed by Hunchback. The only time the Bishop visited the Hunchback in prison was in August 1970 following a written request from the Hunchback.
1976 - Hunchback released from prison in summer.
1976 - First "magical duel" stunt involving JPL in collaboration with the press.
1978 - Hunchback & Bonky "sword duel" according to the press who were in contact with the Hunchback.
1982 - Bonky stakes "vampire spider".
1984 - Second "magical duel" according to the press who were in contact with the Hunchback.
1985 - Bonky's first unexpurgated account of the case of the Highgate Vampire is published by the British Occult Society. The Bishop's account up to August 1970 had previously appeared ten years earlier in an anthology published by Leslie Frewin Books and also in paperback by Coronet.
1986 - Bonky & Hunchback's last face to face meeting according to the Hunchback. This does not accord with the Bishop's account given in his work From Satan To Christ (Holy Grail, 1988).
1991 - Hunchback's first booklet in which barely a dozen pages refer to the Highgate Vampire despite the pamphlet's title. Hundreds of lines are reproduced without consent from the Bishop's book that had been published six years earlier. Stolen images are also illegally published with captions containing false attributions.
1992 - Hunchback & Bonky "truce" according to the Hunchback.
1996 - "Truce" ends according to the Hunchback.
Addendum:
Bear in mind that the Hunchback is someone who claims the Bishop's hair was black before it started to turn grey! The Bishop was born light blond which remained his hair colour throughout infancy. In adulthood the Bishop's hair was light brown in winter months and between light brown and dark blond in summer months due to exposure to the sun. Anyone who knew the Bishop in the past will confirm this to absolutely be the case.
I am not going to go through "Ariminour's" re-written history of events line by line Cat.
Suffice it is to say that "Ariminous" himself is an inveterate LIAR.
The biggest lie of all, of course, is how he desperately tries to conceal his real identity.
Nobody believes him: least of all the 'Yorkshire Pudding' who has put this fact in writing to myself and many other people on numerous accasions. But it seems she has caught the 'lying desease' as well now - although she will never be able to escape her own conscience! Certainly not from the One who gave her such a conscience!
David Farrant
Why am I not surprised that Farrant will not identify anything in particular to challenge?
I am confident it will be found that the public record will 100% support my corrections.
Insults will not alter that fact.
If you think "Ariminous" that I'm going to go through all of your doctored points just to placate your warped sense of reasoning, then think again, as unlike you, I am not caught in trivia. Cat's list was basically right the first time, so there is no need to.
I will say this much though: it was MYSELF who invited bonky (i.e. yourself) to take a lie detector test some years ago (2005 I believe, anyway that's all on record). He kept avoiding this issue - which is a pity as I really wanted to ask him if it was true he really 'staked' a vampire and then incinerated it with petrol and then staked another after it (she) had changed into a 'giant spider'. Its perhaps little wonder why he didn't want to answer that! He'd fail miserably or most of his other 'doctored' points. Not least that he never met myself until until early 1970. There are numerous witnesses to prove otherwise, although he seems to have conveniently forgotten about those. Jacqueline (the 'giant spider girl') was one of them.
So no, "Ariminous" I'm not going to waste people's time here by entering into futile arguements with yourself.
Do you really blame me when you're too much of a coward to reveal your true identity?
I don't waste my time arguing with fictitous people. And you, "Ariminous", are one of these.
David Farrant
The trouble is I am too real for Farrant's liking. He remains unwilling to identify an item which we can then focus on and see what comes up under the microscope.
I'll take just one expample, as he seems incapable, to save this topic descending further into repetitive abuse against argument founded on factual evidence.
The example I have chosen is the contentious Bradish case because I cannot discuss someone else's supernatural experience. Such experience is entirely subjective. The existence of vampires would be no easier to "prove" than would the existence of ghosts or anything else deemed supernatural, so I shall not go down that path.
There was nothing supernatural about the Bradish case, so we are dealing with hard evidence.
Farrant claims that the Bishop was fined and that Bradish was exonerated. Farrant further argues that the "list was basically right the first time, so there is no need to" discuss it. Closer examination of the public record and what really transpired might suggest why the list should be questioned.
Farrant's sole piece of evidence is a small column in the Daily Mirror, 5 November 1970. He omits all mention of the fact that the newspaper had a complaint upheld against them by the Bishop for inaccurate coverage of the case.
The court case was brough about by the Bishop against Bradish, an acquaintance of Farrant but not an acquaintance of the Bishop. When a complaint was lodged with the Press Council against the Daily Mirror by the Bishop they upheld his complaint and the Daily Mirror was obliged to publish a statement offering balancing commentary which they did at the foot of page two of their newspaper on 26 November 1970.
Farrant fasely claims that Bradish was exonerated. He was not. Bradish was found guilty of assault and received a criminal record. Farrant also falsely claims that the Bishop was fined. He was not. No evidence has been or will be produced by Farrant to show there was a fine. The Bishop brought the case for which Bradish was the defendant.
Criminal compensation was awarded to the Bishop in the following year by the Criminal Compensation Board, the assault case having been proven. This resulted in compensation for injuries sustained.
Until the trial, the Bishop had not spoken with or met Bradish or his wife who could not possibly have recognised the Bishop's voice because she had no contact with him until the day of the court case.
Farrant now claims the Bishop is unavailable for a lie detector test. This is completely untrue. It is Farrant who has consistently refused to be tested on the issue. The Bishop has been saying for years that on the issue of the Bradish case he would be more than willing to take a test provided the same questions regarding telephone calls to Mrs Bradish are put to Farrant. The reason for his willingness to do so on this one matter is because it is where the so-called "feud" originates.
It is recorded by those present that on the day of the court case Farrant was seen grinning inanely in the public gallery.
ARIMINOUS RANTS ON . . .
“I'll take just one expample, [sic} as he seems incapable, to save this topic descending further into repetitive abuse against argument founded on factual evidence”.
Your example dates back to a Court case from 1970, Ariminous (yes 39 years ago), involving the late Mrs Gillian Bradish, her then husband, and myself. (Talk about living in the past, “Ariminous”, you are really ‘stuck’ there!).
You say, that I said, Bonky was fined ₤200 as a result of this Court case. I said no such thing (read back). I said he was ‘bound over to keep the peace on the sum of ₤200 – there is a difference! Stop ‘twisting’ what I actually said ‘Ariminous”!
You say that the first time Gillian met Bonky was in Court. Not so. She testified in evidence that she had met him several times in the Prince of Wales pub in Highgate and this was how she could recognize his voice when he telephoned her threatening her, making ‘black magic’ threats to herself.
Asked in Court why he had telephoned Gillian, Bonky replied in evidence that he couldn’t have telephoned her because he didn’t know her phone number as it was ex-directory! Well, that was really the end of Bonky’s case. He was bound over on the sum of ₤200 to keep the peace and warned not to telephone Gillian again. He didn’t!
David Farrant
PS You wanted hard facts, “Ariminous”, so here are some!
" 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?"
Well nobody could know 'what happened' better than myself Cat!
I can tell you here - and I will tell you. But first, I'll give 'bonky' (aka 'Ariminous') a chance to give you his side of the story in answer to your question.
Can't wait to see it! But in the meantime, I am just waiting for 'Ariminous' to answer my last couple of important points.
Still waiting at the moment!
David Farrant
Farrant should take another look at the original list which he described in his first post on this topic as being "basically accurate in essence."
The original list which Farrant finds "accurate in essence" declares:
"1970 - Bonky fined for Bradish calls."
In my corrections to the original list I state that the Bishop was not fined for making the Bradish calls.
There is no "twisting" of facts and no "living in the past." I was correcting a mistake made by someone else. I did not ask for that list to be published. If anyone is dredging up the past it is not me, but if someone else should bring up the past to misrepresent it there is a moral impediment to amend any errors found which are serious.
Mrs Bradish did not meet the Bishop in the Prince of Wales or anywhere else. She testisfied that she had seen him in the Prince of Wales when he was in company she did not know. She knew Farrant, as did her husband, but neither knew the Bishop. She had caught sight of the Bishop across a crowded pub and no doubt Farrant pointed out to her who he was in view of her having possibly seen him twice on television that year.
The hard fact of the matter is that Farrant made black magic threats to Mrs Bradish on the telephone and attempted to blame the Bishop. Whether Bradish and his wife really believed it was the Bishop at the time of the case is still a contentious issue, but they accepted some time after the case that it was Farrant who made the calls. Perhaps one of the people in the Prince of Wales Farrant had been boasting to about him making the calls to frame the Bishop had spoken to Bradish? It makes no difference because everyone contemporaneous to the black magic threats and ensuing court case for assault know it was Farrant who made the calls. There is not a shred of doubt.
It is no "bombshell" to remind people that these threats to frame the Bishop were the origin of the 39-year-old "feud." Everyone familiar with the facts surrounding the supposed "feud" know this to be the case. Because of this the Bishop has always been available to take a lie detector test on anything related to the black magic telephone threats and the Bradish court case which was a direct outcome of those calls. His disgust at the whole situation was recorded in some newspapers immediately after the case itself.
The Bishop has always been willing to accommodate any genuine test if it can be arranged. Whether Farrant will also take the test is quite another matter. Since the case he has cried off every time when challenged to appear to test his claims on all sorts of things, including his non-existent "witchcraft powers" which challenge led to him hiding behind locked doors when he should have instead been facing the Bishop in public.
"Whether Bradish and his wife really believed it was the Bishop at the time of the case is still a contentious issue, but they accepted some time after the case that it was Farrant who made the calls"
What nonsense that is, "Ariminous", and you know it!
The late Mrs. Bradish answered the phone after seeing him (Bonky)and hearing him drinking with myself in the Prince of Wales. She was well aware of who Bonky was and, of course, she was well aware of my voice as I was staying with them at the time after her husband had stood bail for me (the latter was a bail condition).
So tht pathetic argumentis really a 'non-starter'!
Also "Ariminous", I notice you always carefully avoid the two threatening letters that Bonky wrote to them both. Why? Because that was the main reason her husband went down to the flat to confront Bonky.
We all know the rest!
David Farrant
PS Mrs Bradish died in 1976, but she never once changed her mind about who had phoned her.
It has been confirmed by the Bishop in the past who, due to that fact, has for the past thirty-nine years been willing to be tested.
Others contemporaneous to this situation also are aware. I could name names but, in view of your blog stricture, will not do so. I leave it to Farrant to identify people by their full name, something he has already done on this very topic.
My understanding from what I have gleaned along the way is that the black magic telephone threats made to Mrs Bradish by Farrant and Farrant's subsequent framing of the Bishop which led to an assault and court case is the sole and original cause of the "feud." It has never been resolved because Farrant still publicly, though not privately, denies making the threatening calls and absolutely refuses to take a lie detector test. He might say he will on this blog but if it was properly arranged for both to take a test Farrant would not go through with it.
If Farrant were to admit publicly what he has already admitted privately to various people the root of the "feud" would be extracted and the pain might eventually cease for all concerned.
The "feud" might appear to involve just two people to those not aware of all the people Farrant has tried to involve down the years. It actually involves a great many people, especially those who have received Farrant's unsolicited hate material or, moreover, featured in it.
What threatening letters? This is the first I have heard of any threatening letters.
Farrant of course has a history of making black magic threats to people. It even landed him in jail with a two years prison sentence for threatening people with black magic.
Mrs Bradish committed suicide due to an unstable mind. The poor woman had a history of mental instability, something which Farrant exploited to the full when he made the threatening telephone calls and tried to convince her it was the Bishop.
Soon after the case everyone was aware of who had made those calls, including Bradish. The Bishop saw Bradish many years later and it was confirmed by Bradish that he had known it was Farrant from soon after the case. Others have said the same thing, including the person who used to work for the Bishop in the days of his studio. That person overheard Farrant telling people in the Prince of Wales that he had made the calls to frame the Bishop.
One day the truth will be known.
. . . "and absolutely refuses to take a lie detector test. He might say he will on this blog but if it was properly arranged for both to take a test Farrant would not go through with it"
You must have a very, very short memory,"Arimious". On a radio Forum in 2005, I challenged to YOU to an official lie detecter test; this being one of the issues. Catherine was reading it at the time, so would remember. You disrupted that Forum "Ariminous" if you remember, things getting a little too truthful for your liking. Whatever, this was my suggestion, not Bonky's.
What I find pretty despicable about your statements, "Ariminous", is the fact that the late Mrs Bradish was a friend of mine - and a close one at that.
I would have never done anything like that which could have hurt her. Her husband got me out of prison and she was sharing her home with myself.
You now maliciously claim that she knew that it was myself that made the phone call/s. You are only saying such a vindictive thing now "Ariminous" because you know that she died in 1976.
You would not be saying it now if she was still alive. Very cowardly. But then that's like you all over.
David Farrant
The Bishop has been offering to do a properly conducted test by accredited testers for thirty-nine years. He will still do so.
Not as a publicity-stunt, I hasten to add, but as a means to reveal the truth of what happened.
This is at the root of the bad blood which has been festering for decades.
Farrant says that Bradish helped him to be released from prison.
We must certainly ask ourselves why, then, was Farrant conducting at the time what he called his "anti-Bradish campaign"?
I can provide the answer, as can some others.
Farrant believed that Bradish had made a pass at his wife on a visit to Farrant's flat in the late 1960s. He was determined to get his revenge. By doing what he did against Bradish he also managed to cause trouble for the Bishop. It was a two birds with one stone situation and it delighted Farrant when he pulled it off.
The "anti-Bradish campaign" being conducted by Farrant was common knowledge to all who drank at the Prince of Wales and other pubs in Highgate Village.
"Farrant believed that Bradish had made a pass at his wife on a visit to Farrant's flat in the late 1960s. He was determined to get his revenge."
Is that really the best you can do, "Ariminous"?
John never 'made a play' for my wife!
The only place that figament exists is in the confines of your warped imagination!
It follows, there was no feud - or 'campaign as you call it. The only person trying to cause trouble for himself and his late wife was the bonky one who sent the two letters (which he gave to the police at the time, in fact) and made the phone call/s
Indeed, far from being any 'feud', John came to my wedding reception in 1979 and both my wife and myself used to go to John's home for Christmass dinner until well into the eighties!
You really have got the most sordid imagination, "Ariminious" - just like Bonky! Indeed, one could be forgiven in thinking that the limits of your intelligence are virtuallly identical on a 'bonky level'!
The more discerning people here will be able to see exactly why!
Grow up, "Ariminous"
David Farrant
Farrant is on record as saying that the reason he launched his "Bradish Defamation League" hate campaign was because of the moves Bradish made on Mrs Farrant at the flat in Archway Road. A number of people heard Farrant state this in the Prince of Wales pub, among other places, and I believe Farrant can be heard confirming the unwanted attention Bradish was paying his wife on tape. The "Bradish Defamation League" comprised one man, Farrant, who spent his time posting stickers in the public lavatories of pubs he frequented, stickers that contained an infantile cartoon of Bradish and whatever the slur of the moment happened to be. These stickers were always signed "Bradish Defamation League." Farrant boasted to his drinking acquaintances that he was responsible for the stickers which he often showed to people before posting them. That much is a fact.
People from that time and place still remember Farrant's antics in this regard. I could name quite a few of them but obviously not on this blog. Farrant must think people are stupid to forget what has gone before just because it is no longer convenient for him to want to publicly remember. Privately Farrant knows what I am saying is totally accurate.
The Bishop spoke with Bradish in the 1980s, as had others prior to that decade. Bradish confirmed his absolute distrust of Farrant. He had long since accepted that Farrant alone made the black magic telephone threats to his wife in 1970.
What I suggest is a properly controlled lie detector test where Farrant is asked:
1. Were you aware of Bradish forcing his attentions on your wife in your home during the late 1960s?
2. Did you resent Bradish for making advances on your wife?
3. Did you organise a campaign involving stickers which bore the name "Bradish Defamation League"?
4. Did you post these "Bradish Defamation League" stickers in the public lavatories of pubs and other places?
5. Did you make the telephone calls to Mrs Bradish she referred to in court in 1970?
6. Did you try to convince Mrs Bradish that the telephone calls later to be mentioned in court had been made by the Bishop?
7. Why did you leave the Bradish household as their lodger soon after the case?
8. Did you ever admit to anyone that you had made the threatening telephone calls to Mrs Bradish?
9. Were you visiting Bradish well into the 1980s?
10. Were your actions against the Bishop due to your resentment over him and the British Occult Society publicly denouncing your behaviour at Highgate Cemetery and the claims you were making in this regard throughout the media?
'NO PEOPLE' . . . EXCEPT ONE!
"People from that time and place still remember Farrant's antics in this regard. I could name quite a few of them but obviously not on this blog. Farrant must think people are stupid to forget what has gone before just because it is no longer convenient for him to want to publicly remember. Privately Farrant knows what I am saying is totally accurate"
There were 'no people', 'Ariminous' - except onne - just as there was no campaign against John.
I say 'except one' because this was a close friend of Bonky's whom he (Bonky) nicknamed 'The Eggmanne'. Bonky and The Eggmanne were as 'thick as theives' and always publicity stunts ; more often than not, using their respective cameras.
Now Bonky and 'The Eggmanne' fell out for a couple of years during the period Bonky was visiting me at my home (and during the period I was secretly tape recording his).
Bonky told me on frequent occasions (that I still have on tape) that I should keep 'well away' from the Eggmanne as he was 'not to be trusted' and he was trying to 'turn as many people against me' as he could.
I can certainly believe that!
Once Bonky told me (again on tape) that nobody could believe a waord the Egmanne said becasu he was a 'paranoic liar'.
So this whole 'feud thing' was really an invention of Bonky and the Egmanne because I suppose they saw some 'story' in it.
The truth is I never fell ot with John. He (John) often used to visit me at my flat with his second wife, and in turn my second wife and myself went over to his house regularly for Christmas dinner until well into the eighties.
So you are just repeating fanciful lies 'Ariminous', no doubt just to try to 'substantiate' your warped allegations.
Make no mistake. I have all the tapes of Bonky which can confirm this.
David Farrant
Fanciful lies?
I don't think so. At least, not on my part. Too many people remember the Hunchback from way back then. He has this predisposition to rewrite history as if it didn't happen. It did. If he creates blogs and contributes to other blogs such as this one, which effectively dredge up the past, the hunched one must expect balancing comment.
Or perhaps he would just prefer platforms from which to vent his abuse at the Bishop with absolutely no response from anyone who might want to challenge his libellous tirade of malice?
The Hunchback keeps talking about "tapes" while ignoring the most damning tape-recording there could be where he is concerned. I refer, of course, to the secretly recorded converstaions made by the Eggman in early 1970 on which the pair of them can be heard conspiring to hoax a ghost story.
There was a hate campaign against Bradish conducted by the Hunchback in the way described. That is why I have suggested this question be included in any lie detector test.
What might also be interesting would be if Bradish could be found to clear up some of the anomalies between what I have said and what the Hunchback has claimed. It cannot be that difficult. He has always lived in the same Borough of London.
Most telling, I find, is the Hunchback's total reluctance to address the issue of being tested on the questions I have raised, or indeed any of the questions themselves.
My own question to the hunched one is does he want a resolution to the so-called "feud" or would he just as soon take it to the grave? I suspect the latter, but I would like to hear it from him.
LIE DETECTOR TEST
You seem to have a conveniently short memory, “Ariminous”. It was myself who suggested to ‘bonky’ taking a lie detector test to ‘bonky’ in 2005. This was on a radio broadcast message board. and I’m sure I also made the same proposal on Alex Lucard’s forum (from which ‘bonky’ ended up being banned).
I even remember the suggested questions I put forward:
I offered to officially answer if (1) I had actually committed those 2 acts of vandalism at Highgate Cemetery of which I had been convicted (2) whether I had ever ‘sacrificed a cat’ (or any other animal), (3) if I had made the threatening telephone calls and (4) whether I was really a ‘Satanist’ or had ever practiced ‘black magic’.
In return, I suggested that ‘bonky’ be asked if he wrote 2 letters to JB threatening him to ‘revoke’ my bail’ and if he made the threatening phone call (or calls) to Mrs B., (2) whether it was true that he ‘staked’ a real vampire in 1973 then incinerated it using a can of petrol. (3) whether he then staked a disciple of this vampire in 1982 after she had changed into a ‘giant spider’ and whether it was really himself (SM) making all these allegations against myself under invented names.
I repeated this request on several occasions but bonky always kept prevaricating (under the false identity he had then adopted.). All this stuff was then copied and is still on record.
You are now just trying to ‘reverse’ this “Ariminous” to claim the lie detector test was your idea, when it was NOT. It was mine (which can be proved by simple reference to the records).
No matter, you now seem to have accepted and I welcome this provided it can be properly arranged.
I think the 4 simple questions I have put forward and cover the whole regarding the essential allegations about myself: indeed, about yourself.
The only proviso I would make about such a Test, is that each side be at liberty to publish the official report, in the Media if necessary as this is to whom most of the allegations have been made.
Give me your answer here please, “Ariminous”, and no more ‘stalling’ this time.
David Farrant
The Hunchback has a conveniently short memory because the Bishop called for a lie detector test soon after the court case in which the hunched one's landlord was found guilty of assault.
The Hunchback was evicted from his first flat where he lived with his wife until she ran off with the Eggamn who, against all odds, was his next landlord. The Hunchback understandably despises the Eggman. Bradish was his next landlord, someone the Hunchback had led a hate camapign against in previous years. What is it about the Hunchback and his landlords?
The Bishop since 1970 has always made clear that the lie detector test should be about the black magic telephone threats allegedly received by Mrs Bradish and all matters pertaining to that and the ensuing court case. Anything else is irrelevant in this regard. He has also always made clear that the media may be present to witness the results.
The Hunchback has tried to confuse this issue by bringing in supernatural incidents out of context and in a different historical time frame, none of which have anything whatsoever to do with the root cause of the so-called "feud."
The hunched one has completely skated around my question as to whether he wants a resolution to this "feud" or would prefer to take it to the grave? As I said before, I very much suspect the latter.
I would nevertheless would like to hear it from him.
PLEASE CONFIRM
"The Hunchback has a conveniently short memory because the Bishop called for a lie detector test soon after the court case in which the hunched one's landlord was found guilty of assault".
Really?! Did he? "Ariminous"?
Well, as you appear to know so much about the "bishop's" (and that in quotes for very good reason!) activities, could you be good enough to confirm exactly when such a lie detector test was requested by the bonky one back in 1970.
If this is true, you would certainly have dates and references (and places) that people here would be able to check up on?
So can you give these to us please? Personally I have no record of any such 'request', but if you do, then no doubt you would have no objection to releasing it. It would potentially be a matter of public record, wouldn't it, "Ariminous".
So please let us know, because then people here (and anywhere else) would be able to check up on any such request.
Details please, "Ariminous".
Thanks,
David Farrant
After the court case, the Bishop was intervewed by a number of local and national newspapers to express his thoughts on the outcome. He called for a lie detector test for all those concerned. At that point he did not believe any telephone calls had been made to Mrs Bradish and that the claim was a device for mitigation by the defence.
When he was told that Farrant had been heard boasting to drinking acquaintances that he had made the threatening calls to frame the Bishop, a change of mind was called for, but it altered nothing. It just meant that now the principal other party was Farrant and not Mr & Mrs Bradish.
Since that time, whenever the matter has been raised, the Bishop has consistently stated that he is more than willing to take a test. Whether Farrant would take a lie detector test is another matter. Farrant has so often said he will do things that have never come to anything on the day.
My question to Farrant, however, still remains ignored.
Does Farrant want a resolution to the so-called "feud" or would he just as soon take it to the grave?
I suspect the latter, but I would like to hear him confirm it one way or another.
"Does Farrant want a resolution to the so-called "feud" or would he just as soon take it to the grave?"
To begin with “Ariminous”, I would have thought that taking a fair lie detector test could have settled any feud, which is why I included the issue of who made the phone calls and sent the letters as one of my suggested questions. So no evasion there. As I never made those phone calls or wrote those threatening letters (which were given to the Barnet Police BEFORE bonky preferred charges incidentally), I would have no problem in answering that.
Over the years bonky (as a main ingredient of his ‘feud’) bonky has accused myself of being as ‘ex felon’, a ‘Satanist’ and of ‘sacrificing cats’. I have even invited questions on that, so I don’t see any ‘evasion’ there either.
You say my suggested question of bonky staking a vampire, and later another which turned into a ‘giant spider’ to be irrelevant because it relates to ‘things supernatural’. Maybe so, but this id the central theme of bonky’s ‘vampire story’ which he put forward as a FACTUAL OCCURRENCE, so one is quite entitled to ask him if he is lying about that. But the most essential, as I see it, is for bonky to be asked if it is really himself making all these malicious allegations under invented names. It is perhaps little wonder he would not want to answer that!
Do I want to end the feud, Ariminous keeps repeating?
I have already made two invitations in this direction, “Ariminous” by inviting bonky to my flat with his wife. The first invitation (last year) has apparently been conveniently ‘lost’.
But the one I made this year couldn’t have been could it “Ariminous”? I mean, as you are a very ‘close friend’ of the “bishop” and, by your own admission, post on a ‘hostile Blog’ in ‘his’ defence, you would have surely told him about this proposal? I have no intention of going onto his extremely hostile Blog, “Ariminous”, but as you are here already so would have seen my invitation, perhaps you could say what the “bishop” said when you passed on this invitation?
That is the first thing.
The second thing, of course, is how could I be personally assured that any discussion in this respect (to end the feud) had bonky’s personal authorization? All we have at the moment, “Ariminous”, are just words from yourself without any guarantee you even have any personal authorization in this matter.
Anyway, you could start by giving me the answer to my recent invitation.
David Farrant
I fail to see how taking a lie detector test could possibly settle any feud. All it can settle with approximately 98% accuracy is who was telling the truth thirty-nine years ago over a certain matter which triggered bad feeling.
The Bishop, as stated many times, has always been willing to do this should anyone make the necessary arrangement for it to take place.
The test would be about the Bradish case and what led up to it. Nothing else. Confusing the issue with extraneous elements is somehing the Hunchback attempts at every available opportunity. This one is crystal clear and should not be obscured by additional baggage unrelated to what actually began the so-called "feud."
The Hunchback claims the Bishop has accused him of being an "‘ex felon’, a ‘Satanist’ and of ‘sacrificing cats’."
Being convicted of a number of criminal charges and serving a significant prison sentence makes the Hunchback an "ex-felon."
In a recorded interview given after his release from prison the Hunchback was asked whether or not he was a Satanist. He answered: "I wouldn't describe myself one way or another." The Bishop holds the opinion that, while some of his activities be considered satanic by many other people, the Hunchback is not and has never been a genuine occultist, witch or Satanist. At most he is a theatrical Satanist, meaning that he purposely manufactures stories in the press which appear satanic while believing in none of it.
On numerous occasions in the past the Hunchback claimed to have sacrificed cats. Just scroll down and read some of the newspaper interviews and articles the Hunchback was responsible for where he claimed to sacrifice cats (at the link below):
http://david-farrant.blogspot.com/
The Hunchback claims he has invited the Bishop to his home, but conveniently forgets this comes years after the Bishop's own repeated invitations to the Hunchback to meet at his retreat. It is obvious to everyone by now that neither is prepared to visit the other. Well over a hundred miles separates them so this is understandable.
I have passed no invitation made by the Hunchback to the Bishop and very much doubt anyone else has.
The Hunchback seems peculiarly incapable of responding to a plain and simple question. I said nothing about invitations or him meeting the Bishop or having discussions with him. My question to the hunched one was as follows:
Does the Hunchback want a resolution to the so-called "feud" or would he just as soon take it to the grave?
That does not require a massive load of waffle about lie detector tests, invitations to homes and sundry discussions, does it?
The tide abides for, tarrieth for no man, stays no man, tide nor time tarrieth no man; although it does meander, swirl around, and even circle back on itself.
Plainly put, does the Hunchback really want an end to this perceived "feud" or is he content to allow it to continue to the end?
Post a Comment