Andrew Gough has done it again. Barely two weeks after he shattered precedent by cajoling the Bishop into appearing alongside arch-rival David Farrant on his forums, the bollocky impresario of Arcadia has published 17 Questions With David Farrant to go along with the Bishop's 17 Questions interview.Astute Feud Followers marvel that the Bishop's long standing rule of never appearing in the same venue with Farrant has been thoroughly bent and nigh well busted for good. Not since 1970 have our Terrible Twosome voluntarily appeared on the same page together. What does it mean? Are they getting too old to fight? And what comes next? Friendship? Pub crawls together? Who knows what would happen then. Pages full of dizzy website arguments would vanish. The Cat's Miaow would close its doors. Young men in Australia would languish. Ceramic cup-makers children would go hungry. It's too terrible to think about!
10 comments:
Seán Manchester has confirmed that when he was invited to be interviewed by Andrew Gough on "Arcadia" it was on the single condition that Farrant was not referred to in questions or included alongside him anywhere on "Arcadia."
Gough agreed to this and Seán Manchester apparently has that in writing in the form of an email.
The "spirit of the agreement" (to quote Seán Manchester) was compromised when Farrant joined the forum on "Arcadia" and started his familiar unpleasantness on the thread "17 Questions: Seán Manchester" and associated threads where Seán Manchester was commenting on matters raised by other members. These did not include any mention of Farrant and certainly not by Seán Manchester who probably finds no relevance in doing so.
The promise given by Gough was broken when an interview with Farrant appeared yesterday by which time Seán Manchester had long since ceased to respond to provocations following the usual culprits joining to post abuse in the wake of his own interview last month.
None of which reflects badly on Seán Manchester who did not respond once to Farrant's provocations or those from his coterie of stalkers who joined to fuel their own obsession with a man who represents values opposite to their own. Indeed, Seán Manchester ceased posting last month, having made clear that he does not desire confrontation.
The person on whom this reflects badly, of course, is Andrew Gough.
That is as much as I know. Should anyone want to know more they should contact Seán Manchester.
No, I think the bishop was convinced by the persuasive Gough (who can apparently talk birds out of trees) to agree to the side by side interview placement.
Seán Manchester was asked to give an interview by Andrew Gough on the aforementioned condition which accompanies any such arrangement involving his contribution.
Andrew Gough agreed to this, according to Seán Manchester who has evidence of their contract.
Quite why "Baldry's Cat" would think otherwise only serves to underline his unwillingness to accept fact over fuelling feuds wherever he rears his head.
To anyone sufficiently intrigued I would suggest they speak directly to each of the concerned parties. They are Andrew Gough and Seán Manchester. Interested persons might also want to invite evidence to support what each claim if there should be any discrepancy, but I doubt there will be. However, it does look like Gough is someone who doesn't keep his word. Future interviewees beware!
Dennis,
What exactly is the objection to having Manchester and Farrant appearing at the same time?
That doesn't really make sense.
It seems that 90% of your input as the International Secretary of the Vampire Research Society seems to be related to David in some way.
By this logic, is it because Manchester's too scared to have something he says contradicted?
JBC,
Had to laugh at that "languishing" line!
But truth by told, I'd be happy for the whole thing to languish. At one point during the tea party discussions, I was even considering setting up a reconciliation blog.
But Manchester's gone and beaten me to it!
Your intrepreation, Anthony, is seen through spectacles tinted with your own perception which, let's face it, is very limited given you were not alive when all this kicked off and live at almost the furthest point on the globe from where this happened and seemingly is still happening.
It is silly and naive to suggest that Seán Manchester is "scared" of being contradicted by Farrant. They have been contradicting each other for four decades! Seán Manchester presented his case. David Farrant presented his. It is for others to debate, but Farrant just could not let it rest and has always wanted to fuel some sort of manufactured feud where he feels able to post reams of daily abuse about the person he is in disgreement with. It is hardly surprising that this has sometimes led to a small handful in Seán Manchester's camp, not unlike myself, wanting to give Farrant just a small taste of his own medicine so he can see what it is like. I agree this is not what Seán Manchester wants, but he is his own person just as everyone else is theirs and are free to express themselves. He does not seek to interfere with this, but equally does not personally seek confrontation as it has clearly achieved nothing in all this time.
Seán Manchester might have extended the hand of peace and reconciliation, but it is yet to be grasped and there are those present on this blog and elsewhere who obviously prefer things to stay as they have been for decades.
Hey Deme, I have a serious question. I am curious what your perspective is regarding the origins of "the feud". For example:
1.Bishop discovers Highgate Vampire
2.Farrant interlopes, poaches undeserved credit and press attention
3.Bishop "sets the record straight about Farrant" in his book
4.Farrant slags Bishop in his book
5. Rinse and repeat #3 and #4. Cycle continues for 40 years.
Is this correct, or did I get it wrong?
1. Bishop discovers Highgate Vampire. CORRECT.
2. Farrant interlopes, poaches undeserved credit and press attention. NOT QUITE. FARRANT'S INTERLOPING BEGAN WITH HIM TRYING TO RIVAL THE VAMPIRE RUMOURS CIRCULATING THE HIGHGATE AREA OVER THE PREVIOUS DECADE WITH A FAKE GHOST STORY THAT HE INTRODUCED TO LOCAL NEWSPAPERS IN FEBRUARY 1970. FARRANT THEN APPEARED AS ONE OF SEVERAL WITNESSES ON A TELEVISION PROGRAMME IN THE FOLLOWING MONTH THAT FEATURED THE FINDINGS OF THE BRITISH OCCULT SOCIETY AND ITS PRESIDENT. LATER THAT SAME YEAR THE BRITISH OCCULT SOCIETY PUBLICLY DISTANCED ITSELF FROM FARRANT'S PUBLICITY-SEEKING ANTICS. WITHIN A COUPLE OF YEARS FARRANT WAS FALSELY DESCRIBING HIMSELF AS THE "PRESIDENT OF THE BRITISH OCCULT SOCIETY." BUT LONG BEFORE THEN HE ENGAGED IN MALICIOUS ACTS TO CAUSE THE GENUINE PRESIDENT HARM, EG THE BRADISH INCIDENT. AT FIRST HE ATTEMPTED TO PARODY THE GENUINE PRESIDENT WHILE EMULATING HIM. IT WAS NOT LONG BEFORE HE WAS HEADING IN THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION AS A WOULD-BE SATANIST DISGUISED AS A WITCH. HE WAS NEITHER, OF COURSE. HE WAS AND REMAINS JUST A PUBLICITY JUNKIE WILLING TO DO ALMOST ANYTHING TO GAIN A FEW INCHES OF NEWSPRINT OR MEDIA TIME.
3.Bishop "sets the record straight about Farrant" in his book. THE RECORD WAS NOT SET STRAIGHT UNTIL A DECADE AND A HALF AFTER FARRANT'S INTERLOPING WHEN THE BRITISH OCCULT SOCIETY PUBLISHED THE FULL ACCOUNT OF THE HIGHGATE CASE. WHEN SEAN MANCHESTER FIRST WROTE ABOUT THE CASE IN A BOOK PUBLISHED IN 1975 HE DID NOT MENTION FARRANT, EVEN THOUGH PETER UNDERWOOD DID IN A COMPLETELY SEPARATE SECTION OF THE ANTHOLOGY. MENTION OF FARRANT IN "THE HIGHGATE VAMPIRE" IS A HANDFUL PAGES OUT OF A COUPLE OF HUNDRED.
4.Farrant slags Bishop in his book. FARRANT'S PAMPHLET WITH LITTLE MORE THAN A DOZEN PAGES ABOUT THE HIGHGATE CASE INCLUDED STOLEN PICTURES WHOSE COPYRIGHT BELONGS TO OTHERS, INCLUDING SEAN MANCHESTER, MANY LINES OF TEXT COPIED DIRECTLY FROM SEAN MANCHESTER'S "THE HIGHGATE VAMPIRE" WITHOUT THE AUTHOR'S CONSENT, AND FALSELY ATTRIBUTED CAPTIONS TO STOLEN PHOTOGRAPHS.
5. Rinse and repeat #3 and #4. Cycle continues for 40 years. PRETTY MUCH. THOUGH SOME OF THE SETTING STRAIGHT ON SEAN MANCHESTER'S PART HAS CLEARLY BEEN DUE TO FARRANT'S MALICIOUS BEHAVIOUR AND OBSESSIVE DISSEMINATION OF LIBELLOUS ABUSE ABOUT SEAN MANCHESTER WHILE CONSTANTLY REWRITING, REVISING AND CONTRADICTING HIS OWN HISTORY REGARDING HIGHGATE CEMETERY AND SEAN MANCHESTER.
THANKS FORN THAT 'REPEAT PRFORMANCE', "DEMONOLOGIST".
Well, who' 'shouting' now . . . You or Bonky??
David Farrant
What's given Farrant the hump?
I know what's given other people the hump with Farrant; people he doesn't know in the slightest who are very good friends of Seán Manchester.
Them receiving his stupid stapled pamphlets such as "Bishop Bonkers" or "SeanGate" or whatever other childish piece of malice this 64-year-old hunchback sends them!
When is Farrant ever going to grow beyond the mentality of a naughty schoolboy with a cruel streak to match the yellow streak down his deformed back?
My bet is never!
"I know what's given other people the hump with Farrant; people he doesn't know in the slightest who are very good friends of Seán Manchester"
I am really not inn the least bit interested as to who is friends of whom.
All I am saying is that "Demonologist" and "Ariminous" do not exist as genuine people. They are merely aliases the 'bonky one' hides behind when he spouts all his venom at other innocent people - myself the main target. He does this because he's too much of a coward to reveal his true identity as this would otherwise betray the false 'holy image' he has fantisied about himself.
He is fooling no-one - least of all most people here.
David Farrant
Post a Comment