Monday, November 30, 2009

Bonky Bails Out

After nearly two weeks of cohabiting Andrew Gough's Arcadia forum with David Farrant, the bishop has fled. Regarding the bishop's sudden exit, forum members observed:
"The contrast between (the bishop's) demeanour on this forum and that of David Farrant, who has answered sometimes very personal questions with candour, gentleness and humility, is very noticeable."

"Is the bishop usually this rude to people he doesn't know?"

"From what I have seen, Mr. Farrant shows himself to at least be a gentleman. I guess 'manners 101' was not one of the courses in bishop school."
A tip for the bishop: try a different signature photo. The one of you looking away from the camera makes you appear stand-offish and remote. We also wonder if David was taught his manners in 'Witch School', and if you might be able to audit the class?

41 comments:

David Farrant said...

Its not really surprising he's 'run off' you know. He knows he can't say anything about myself on there without disclosing his true identity - well, all three of them actually!

David Farrant

Anthony Hogg said...

So how's that tea party coming along? :)

David Farrant said...

"So how's that tea party coming along?"

Hello again, Anthony.

It ain't! But the invitation is still open for here and I've got the coffee mugs all ready in case anybody wants to come along.

David (Farrant)
PS Hope you haven't been too lonely without us!

Anthony Hogg said...

Hi David,

So you've flipped the initial invitation offered by Manchester, who also conceded to have Dennis along, so that it can be held at your place instead?

So that means neither of you are contacting the other?

How clever! What a nice stalemate you've made! All so you guys can ramble on and on and on about the same old balderdash!

And sell a few mugs.

Fantastic!

Hahaha and no, I haven't been too lonely without you guys. After all, I see how you've been keeping yourselves occupied!

I even wrote up a few entries up on my blog.

Baldry's Cat said...

Ah, those damned mugs. That pillock Cecil gets the lions share of the profits. And the BPOS takes its cut. It's like the Black Hand Mafia: I hardly see a pence!

David Farrant said...

"So you've flipped the initial invitation offered by Manchester, who also conceded to have Dennis along, so that it can be held at your place instead?"

Have you completely 'flipped' Anthony?! Where do you get your information from?

Look forget 'Dennis' he doesn't exist except as some alias Bonky is using to put to his (Bonky's) own posts.

I invited Bonky to my flat with his wife, and said I would only have my secretary, Patsy, here. So far I have heard absolutely 'zilch'! Still waiting. (That offer still goes incidentally).

Now, as for YOU, Cat, I'll have you know, I GAVE Gareth his coffee mug and didn't ask any money for it!

Us 'witches' are very kind-hearted really you know!

David

Anthony Hogg said...

David,

As you would know (and so would JBC), I kept up a running tally of who-said-what in regards to this tea party business.

The initial offer was very clearly made by Manchester. Have a read through JBC's "Tea for Two" and its subsequent comments.

That's where I get my information from.

You're now saying to forget Dennis, even though it was your stipulation that he be in attendance as part of the deal?

Hahaha, you really take the cake, Dave.

Sure, you invited "Bonky" to your flat. Except what you fail to mention is that you made your offer after I informed you about the Bishop's invite.

You know very well that he made his offer first, so don't play games.

Now, seeing that he made the invite first and offered you a response byway of his blog (which I also drew your attention to), shouldn't you at least respond to that initial request?

You're acting like a child with this "no, he can come to me" twaddle.

Obviously, neither of you are going to contact each other off the bat, so considering he made the initial offer and acceded to your initial terms, I think you should at least respond to that first and then discuss venues later.

But maybe, just maybe, you don't want to resolve things with him.

Maybe you're happy keeping the feud alive as it keeps your name in print and you can make a quid off its back.

As JBC pointed out, "the BPOS takes its cut" from sales of the mug and you've been in cahoots with "Cecil" on other projects too.

Baldry's Cat said...

Are you insinuating that a "cottage industry" is being built around the feud??

; )

Anthony Hogg said...

Yes sir. Yes I am! ;)

Especially as...I don't get any proceeds from my "inclusion" in the Adventures of Bishop Bonky *grumble grumble*

David Farrant said...

"You're now saying to forget Dennis, even though it was your stipulation that he be in attendance as part of the deal?
Hahaha, you really take the cake, Dave."

No. It is you who are getting your facts mixed up, Anthony.

Lets take this first:

The first invitation WAS made by 'bonky', admittedly but it was made to a local newspaper in London and he (bonky) invited a reporter to witness a 'full scale exorcism' of myself to be conducted by him and his cronies in (or near) his bunglow in Bournemouth. Bonky was quoted as saying (alongside a picture of himself in that newspaper) he wanted to @rid me of my demons" [sic].

When later challenged about this, the bonky one tried to pretend that it was just an 'invitation for tea', which it clearly was not.

As to your quote above, I did indeed offer to meet the bonky one at hs bunglow PROVIDING "Dennis Crawford" and "Ariminous Vamberry" were present. Why? Because I was 'calling his bluff' as I knew neither of these people existed except in the form of the bonky one himself.

I thought you would have had the intelligence to realise that, at the time, Anthony! Apparently not!

I have currently invited the bonky one and his wife to my flat for a meeting, if they so wish one. I have said the only other person present would be my secretary.

This still stands as a genuine invitation; but so far the silence haa been deafening.

I wonder why?!?

David Farrant

Vampirologist said...

No. It is the hunchback who is getting his facts mixed up.

Let's take this first:

Seán Manchester tendered an invitation to the humped one for tea at his Retreat (which, incidentally, is not a bungalow but a five bedroom detached Edwardian property) more than seven years ago via a member of the Fortean Times online forum. Moderators took up the invite to clarify aspects and it was determined for all to see who read that forum that it was to be a private meeting with nobody else present, least of all the press.

Let's take this second:

FT moderators enquired if the invitation for tea was open or whether it would expire by a certain date. Seán Manchester was contacted and it was confirmed that the invitation is open.

Let's take this third:

Seán Manchester made the overture for a private meeting between just the two of them over seven years ago via mediators and moderators on the Fortean Times forum.

SEAN MANCHESTER HAS HAD NO RESPONSE FROM FARRANT WHO STILL PREVARICATES AND SQUIRMS WHENEVER REMINDED OF THE INVITATION PROPOSED BY THE PERSON HE IS OBSESSED WITH MALIGNING AND DEFAMING EVERY DAY OF HIS LIFE.

Anthony Hogg said...

Hi David,

Oh no, not the exorcism again. You're still bringing that up?

So are you trying to say, what, that this specific invite to "tea and scones" is actually...an exorcism ambush? What exactly are your trying to say here?

Yes, I know you wanted to call Manchester's bluff by asking that Dennis be present, too.

Problem is, he called it.

When I mentioned this to you, you backtracked by wanting to change the invite around so that Manchester would go to your place instead. Thus, playing the usual games again.

Don't insult my intelligence with this, Dave, as I know it's another one of the tactics you use when you've been backed into a corner.

Yes, you have currently invited him (and his wife) to your dwelling place, but, as I pointed out, after he made his invite to you.

Do you like going around in circles or something?

Not one thing you said actually contradicts what I wrote previously. More smokescreens.

What a surprise!

Why has the silence been deafening? I imagine it's because you're playing games again. Anyone can see that.

But it's ok, David. I get it. The more important thing to you hear isn't reconciliation (or, at the very least, some sense of civility), but profit-mongering from the feud.

And woe betide anyone who dares to point out your game-playing! They might end up being lampooned in an online comic! Woo boogie boogie! :)

David Farrant said...

"But it's ok, David. I get it. The more important thing to you hear isn't reconciliation (or, at the very least, some sense of civility), but profit-mongering from the feud".

I really do feel its about time you started getting your facts straight Anthony.

To start with, I did not even have a computer in 2002, the date "Demonologist" alleges I was invited to a 'tea party'.

My current invitation IS on line, however, and as "Demnologist" admits he is in touch with the 'bonky one', there is no way he (the 'bonky one') could not have known about it.

So, please forget all this 'bulldust' about 'tea parties' you were trying to arrange Anthony. Why not start with my legimate invitation which still stands on line?

And what's all this about me 'profiteering' fromm BPOS merchandise?!? Just because Cecil sent me some mug samples, and I had cause to send some out to Iceland, the UK, the US, Argentina, and other parts of the world (and yes, even four orders to your part of the world 'down under') does not necessarily mean I'm personally making any profit.
Very little, in fact, but luckily all I have to do is pass my orders on and Cecil (the head of this project as if you did not already know) just takes care of that side of things.

You seem to be confused about so many things, Anthony. Not least you're belief tha "Demonologist" and "Ariminous Vambery" are real people!

But I guess if you haven't figured that out yet, you never will!

David (Farrant(

Vampirologist said...

Is "David Farrant" a real person? That is the question. Or is he really "Allan Farrow" or "Allan Aden Ellson" or ... ? There are really too many to list. But it was Farrant who operated illegally under different names on different passposts many years ago, not Seán Manchester or anyone else!

As for Farrant not having a computer in 2002, we only have his word for that, but it hardly matters if you read the very long thread "Bishop Seán Manchester and his Church" on the FT forum as there were a number of members on there who were in touch with Farrant and said so. Farrant became a member himself, but I'm unsure at what point. In becoming a member he would have been personally aware of the invitation because it is unimaginable that he did not study every comment posted on a dedicated thread about his nemesis.

The bottom line is that the invitation for a convivial meeting with refreshment between just the two of them was made seven years ago and has been reiterated on various occasions since then.

And, of course, Farrant is not interested.

Anthony Hogg said...

David,

*sigh* Let's get some "facts" straight right now. I wasn't talking about some 2002 party or whatever.

Consult the "Tea for Two" blog entry and its subsequent comments.

Let me refresh your memory: you acceded to attending if Dennis was present. I made Manchester aware of your request. He agreed.

After I informed you about this, you started backpedaling.

Sorry mate, but you're deliberately mucking about. It's that kind of stuff that seriously undermines your desire for reconciliation. You bugger about too much.

I believe part of the reason for that is profiteering. Why else would your publishing company be responsible for publishing that comic? The mug? Collusions with CLD?

You want monetary gain from the feud.

No feud = no money.

After all, it's not like many people are into your exploits as a "psychic researcher".

They're interested in your connection to Highgate. No surprise at the title of your recent autobiography, so you're obviously fully aware of it yourself.

Dave, you do yourself a great disservice in trying to paint me as an idiot. I know it's a tactic you employ when you get "exposed".

You also dredge up this old chestnut: "you're belief tha 'Demonologist' and 'Ariminous Vambery' are real people!"

As I've told you before, and I'll tell you again, I address them as different people because I have no specific, reproducible proof that they are Manchester himself.

Got it?

I never dismissed the possibility that they're Manchester in disguise.

But, without specific, reproducible proof, I'm not gonna authoritatively publicise such a thing.

However, I could just as easily say that you're Gareth by that logic, considering that I know he has access to your account and, for some bizarre reason, publishes comments under it rather than getting his own account.

That's not just on Blogger, either. I also noticed that occurring on the JREF forums among other places.

So, why don't you just admit that you're not really willing to reconcile, you just want to profiteer off the feud and keep it in perpetuity?

Vampirologist said...

David Farrant could end this forty-year-old dispute in the blink of an eye if he really wanted to.

The trouble is he has got too much invested in not doing so. What would he do with all his illegal, self-published pamphlets and tracts maligning Seán Manchester?

I say illegal because they are crammed with stolen images whose lawful and exclusive copyright owner is Seán Manchester. The fact that Farrant is selling these items containing stolen material makes him open to be prosecuted for fraud which is a criminal offence. If I was Seán Manchester, as Farrant often falsely claims, his feet would not touch the ground. I would have him in court quicker than you can say "huchback"! Seán Manchester obviously takes the view that this will only perpetuate the so-called feud. I would argue that ignoring Farrant has not done much good either.

There are two ways of showing your hand. One is a fist. The other is the open palm of peace. Farrant prefers the former and will never want closure on what for him is a life-long lifestyle.

Vampirologist said...

ON THE MATTER OF WHO INVITED WHOM FIRST TO A TEA PARTY ...

"To start with, I did not even have a computer in 2002, the date Demonologist alleges I was invited to a 'tea party' ... So, please forget all this 'bulldust' about 'tea parties'." - David Farrant (4 December 2009 @ 2:49)

The following post appeared on a thread titled "Bishop Seán Manchester and his Church" on the Fortean Times forum on 11 June 2002 @ 20:38):

------------------------------------------------------------------

David Farrant writes that "no sane person could be expected to go into an 'enemy camp' alone and unprotected, on some nebulous promise that no harm would befall them. ... if any such 'confrontation' is to be forthcoming at all, it would have to be in public, properly witnessed, and on mutually agreed neutral ground ... [and invariably with] ... one or more representatives from the media."

What does he imagine is going to happen to him? The only "confrontation" would be over whether he wants the English cooked breakfast or Continental croissants and coffee. And how does the bishop's offer in any shape or form appear "nebulous"? I would have thought that it could not be more lucid and straightforward. What has been offered is a private period of time, over days if necessary, with no third parties present. The bishop knows well enough to guard against the situation being exploited for publicity. He also knows that it would be impossible to discuss the issues with third parties present because Farrant would not own to them. In private Farrant has nothing to lose in facing facts and dealing with issues truthfully (provided no recording equipment is evident). Talk of the "enemy camp" with "harm befalling" Farrant if he dared to accept the bishop's kind hospitality is hardly helpful and is indicative of Farrant's mindset.

This matter concerns absolutely nobody other than the two individuals themselves. Once others become involved it turns into something else entirely. I can quite understand why Mark Pilkington of Fortean Times would want to put himself forward as some sort of referee, but (a) it isn't necessary, and (b) it will inhibit honest and open discussion.

By the by, Pilkington is known to Farrant and has reviewed his material favourably in Fortean Times magazine. He has even made one of Farrant's items a competition prize on FT online. He is not known to the bishop, however, and has shown partiality to his detriment in the past.

The offer was made by Bishop Manchester. It is not for others to come along and hijack that offer and turn it into a media circus. The two parties are sufficiently familiar with the history to know that nothing whatsoever will be achieved unless it remains private and confidential. That cannot be done with witnesses crowding in. What would these witnesses be doing? This isn't a marriage. This is two people talking by themselves in an open and honest way. To imagine that could possibly happen with third parties present is extremely naive indeed.

------------------------------------------------------------------

A deadline had been set up to this point, but it was soon afterwards revoked by Seán Manchester who agreed to make his offer open and permanent.

Can you believe the offer by Seán Manchester was made over seven years ago and still Farrant does everything in his power to avoid taking it up?

David Farrant said...

"If I was Seán Manchester, as Farrant often falsely claims, his feet would not touch the ground. I would have him in court quicker than you can say "huchback"!"

Well, as you really ARE Bonky, 'Dempnologist', then why don't you do just that?!?

If my books and bookl;ets are really libellous, wherein lies your problem?

Forget all this purile waffle, Sean. The truth is, is you really believed you had any case, you would have done something about it long ago.

Why haven't you? Because you know my booklets were only ever published in the first place to REPUDIATE untrue and malicious allegations BEFORE their publication. That's why you have no case, Sean.

AND YOU KNOW IT!

David Farrant

Vampirologist said...

I am not Seán Manchester. I am just one of about a dozen or so people, including Anthony Hogg, who have been wrongly accused by Farrant of being him because it suits Farrant's agenda and offers a convenient smokescreen to avoid dealing with questions raised by whomever it is making Humpy squirm.

I would put Farrant's question back to him. If Seán Manchester's books are false and thereby libellous why doesn't Farrant sue? The answer is obvious I would have thought.

I suspect the reason Seán Manchester has not sued Farrant is because Farrant is not worth a penny and still owes tens of thousands of pounds in court costs from a libel case he lost back in the 1970s!

Libel is a civil action. Fraud, however, is not. It is criminal. Farrant is guilty of fraud by selling to the public self-published booklets and pamphlets which contain stolen images exclusively owned by Seán Manchester. Does Farrant deny this is the case? Does he deny that he has many times infringed photographs legally belonging to Seán Manchester?

As I said before, if it was me, I would have Farrant convicted in the criminal courts for fraud and copyright theft. I do not share Seán Manchester's more compassionate approach.

During Farrant's last rant, note how he completely ignored my revelation that an invitation for him to attend a tea party at Seán Manchester's private retreat was extended as far back as seven and a half years ago on the Fortean Times forum.

Farrant's silence is positively deafening!

David Farrant said...

"I would put Farrant's question back to him. If Seán Manchester's books are false and thereby libellous why doesn't Farrant sue? The answer is obvious I would have thought."

Are you really being serious Sean?!

Do you really think I would sue you for maintained]ing the you staked a real 'vampire' and cremated it, then staked its disciple after has changed into a 'giant spider'?! Get real! I'd make myself a laughing stock.

You've already done that. No need for me to waste money doing it again!

As for 'fraud' (as you say on my part) then where is your excuse there? If you had any case (which you haven't) I'm sure you would have done something long ago.

If you want to take action against me Sean, then go ahead and do so. I am sure and your 'giant vampire spiders' and you claims on television to have 'staked dozens of vampires' would be laughed out of Court! For one thing, you would have to prove your claims in Court, as opposed to making wild and unfounded statements on television and repeating these on your Blogs.

So go ahead and do so Sean - I am waiting!

But just remember, you would be unable to produce "Ariminous" or "Demonologist" in Court as these people simply do not exist! Except as invented Internet names you are using Sean.

I did not even know about yur 'private tea invitation' in 2002. I was not on the Internet then, as records can prove.

David Farrant

Vampirologist said...

"Do you really think I would sue [Seán Manchester] for maintaineding the [he] staked a real 'vampire' and cremated it, then staked its disciple after has changed into a 'giant spider'?! Get real! I'd make myself a laughing stock."

Is Farrant genuinely as stupid as he pretends, or just devious beyond words? I'm inclined to plump for the latter with a little of the former added as an afterthought.

This is what Farrant had stated previously:

"You know my booklets were only ever published in the first place to REPUDIATE untrue and malicious allegations BEFORE their publication." (6 December 2009)

To which I replied:

"If Seán Manchester's books are false and thereby libellous why doesn't Farrant sue? The answer is obvious I would have thought." (7 December 2009)

Now Farrant is waffling on about it not being worth his while to sue over vampires being staked, but what has that got to do with "untrue and malicious allegations" being made which he felt the need to address?

Farrant wriggles on the hook like the slippery worm he is.

He has not denied stealing photographs exclusively owned by Seán Manchester and reproducing them in publications he then sells to the public which makes the offence fraud as well as copyright theft.

What has this to do with me? Nothing. So why is Farrant bleating on about me appearing in court othet to raise a smokescreen? Farrant is guilty of copyright infringement and criminal fraud. I am just stating a fact, as I have every right to do. It has nothing to do with me if Seán Manchester has done nothing about it because he regards Farrant as an old and sick man who only has his vendetta and a fabricated past to keep him going.

Farrant offers nothing more than a footnote on the tea party invitation of seven and a half years ago:

"I did not even know about yur 'private tea invitation' in 2002. I was not on the Internet then, as records can prove." (7 December 2009)

It wasn't my invitation, of course, it was Seán Manchester's and is it not just a tad curious that the mediator on the FT forum is actually answering a response from Farrant himself? These are Farrant's own words quoted from June 2002:

"no sane person could be expected to go into an 'enemy camp' alone and unprotected, on some nebulous promise that no harm would befall them. if any such 'confrontation' is to be forthcoming at all, it would have to be in public, properly witnessed, and on mutually agreed neutral ground one or more representatives from the media."

He loves the word "nebulous" and often uses it.

It means vague and formless, which is what he is most of the time. The bottom line, however, is that Farrant flatly refused to a private meeting with nobody else involved and continues to avoid any such meeting ever materialising while he still has a nebulous bone in his body to resist.

David Farrant said...

"Now Farrant is waffling on about it not being worth his while to sue over vampires being staked, but what has that got to do with "untrue and malicious allegations" being made which he felt the need to address?"

The false and untrue allegations have already been addressed: hence the booklets which are selling and being distributed world-wide.

Far more effective that wasting my time taking you to Court!

But my question to you was, if you are claiming (which you are) that I have been involved in 'illegal theft", then why don't you take me to Court? I think people will note that you haven't answered that!

I invited you to a private meeting at my flat Sean, with just your wife and my secretary present.

People will also probably note that you always carefully avoid answering that. Why? Wll Sean?

David Farrant

Vampirologist said...

"The false and untrue allegations have already been addressed: hence the booklets ... Far more effective that wasting my time taking [Seán Manchester] to Court!" says Farrant.

So why is he suggesting Seán Manchester should take Farrant to court for the libel in those booklets? After all, Farrant isn't worth a penny and there is a backlog of tens of thousands of pounds (unpaid court costs) being cleared before anyone stands a chance of squeezing a farthing out of Farrant. Not so with Seán Manchester who is quite affluent.

Yet it is not worth Farrant's time taking Seán Manchester to court, but he desperately wants to be taken to court by Seán Manchester.

The reason is publicity.

If Farrant was sued and there was a court case the following would happen:

Farrant would receive wide coverage in the press. He would make sure of that by doing everything in his power to ensure it.

Farrant, after losing the case, would not have to pay anything in court costs etc because he receives state benefits which means he is excused paying these costs while on means-tested welfare.

Farrant will not sue Seán Manchester because he knows he would lose the case and lose face.

Farrant's way of wriggling out of everything is to pretend that I am Seán Manchester to whom he says:

"I invited you to a private meeting at my flat with just your wife and my secretary present."

Why is Farrant so keen to have Seán Manchester's wife present?

If he really wants to have her present he should take up the offer that was made seven and a half years ago by Seán Manchester and reiterated many times since.

As if Seán Manchester's wife would ever consider travelling a hundred or so miles to London to meet the man who sent her own mother malicious pamphlets about her husband and spread vile allegations about her on the internet and wrote the same poisonous filth in self-published pamphlets circulated from his grubby bed-sit!

David Farrant said...

"So why is he suggesting Seán Manchester should take Farrant to court for the libel in those booklets?"

I only suggested that you had a case for 'stolen copyright' which does not fall within the remi of a libel case.

It was YOU who claimed this was 'criminal' - all I asked was why, if this is the case, you haven't acted on it?

Well Sean?

David Farrant

Vampirologist said...

Once again, I remind the casual visitor to this blog that I am not Seán Manchester. I do, however, consider myself to be a friend of Seán Manchester. I live many miles from Seán Manchester and have never met Farrant, though I have been aware of the prankster from the moment he first began his bandwagoneering in early 1970. Having established that small matter, I will now proceed to deal with Farrant who has as little grasp of the law as he does the truth.

Copyright infringement and libel are two separate offences of which Farrant is guilty of both, but both are civil offences unless allied to something which is criminal.

Farrant's copyrigh theft, which he now admits, is allied to fraud which is a criminal offence. This is due to the fact that Farrant charges money for the self-published booklets and tracts he produces and circulates to the public. The fact that his publications contain stolen material, mostly in the form of photographic images lawfully owned by Seán Manchester, and he is asking members of the public to pay for this stolen material makes him culpable of being charged with fraud.

Fraud is a crime. Any lawyer will confirm what I have said above to be the case. Only Farrant doesn't accept it because the last thing he wants is yet another criminal trial at this time in his life.

David Farrant said...

"Farrant's copyrigh theft, which he now admits, is allied to fraud which is a criminal offence. This is due to the fact that Farrant charges money for the self-published booklets and tracts he produces and circulates to the public. The fact that his publications contain stolen material, mostly in the form of photographic images lawfully owned by Seán Manchester, and he is asking members of the public to pay for this stolen material makes him culpable of being charged with fraud"

I have admitted nothing, Sean, other to say that that is what YOU claimed.

All I was saying (which you once again ignored) is that if you are say Bonky (yourself of course)is claiming to have a criminal case why does he (you) not go ahead and bring it. Go ahead! I am inviting you to do so!

So, can you tell us all why you have not already done so? Could it be that you know you have no case?

Well Sean?

David Farrant

Vampirologist said...

Is Farrant actually trying to DENY that his self-published pamphlets, booklets and tracts are full of stolen images which lawfully and e xclusively belong to Seán Manchester?

Take the pamphlet Farrant recently had one of his lackeys post (away from Muswell Hill) to a friend of Seán Manchester whose address is located in Essex.

That pamphlet has a stolen image of Seán Manchester holding a chalice on its cover. On the last page is found a stolen image of Seán Manchester at Glastonbury and the rear cover shows another infringed picture of Seán Manchester with a chalice.

Is Farrant seriously claiming that he has not STOLEN these photographs which belong exclusively to Seán Manchester?

There are hardly any remaining images in that slim effort, but those that do remain, bar one of Farrant, have been stolen and used without consent.

All of the MM&M series are literally crammed with stolen photographs that are lawfully owned by Seán Manchester, and most of Farrant's other self-published pamphlets contain infringed copyright material belonging to Seán Manchester.

That Farrant is selling these publications containing stolen photographs makes him culpable for fraud which is a criminal offence.

Seán Manchester would not need to "have a criminal case" against Farrant because it would be the Crown who would have a criminal case against him. Fraud is a criminal offence. All anyone need to is report it and provide the evidence in the form of Farrant's illegal publications.

As I have said before, were it up to me, I would have Farrant up before the judge quicker than you can say Humpy.

Seán Manchester takes an altogether different view because he regards Farrant as sick, old and probably, though this is unconfirmed, demented. He is also aware that a court appearance with all the attendant publicity is just what Farrant craves. As I have said previously, Farrant would not pay a penny in costs and damages when he loses because he is exempt while he receives state benefits and he has been in receipt of those all his life.

Incidentally, should Farrant doubt my existence as a an entity in my own right, he is invited to meet me in a week's time. Arrangements can be made using a blogspot private message. If he's up for it, I'll contact him. He can ask me any questions he likes about what I have been posting here and elsewhere. He will quickly discover EXACTLY who I am. Personally, I can't wait ...

Baldry's Cat said...

If you're a woman, bring a change of clothing. : )

David Farrant said...

"a an entity in my own right, he is invited to meet me in a week's time. Arrangements can be made using a blogspot private message. If he's up for it, I'll contact him. He can ask me any questions he likes about what I have been posting here and elsewhere. He will quickly discover EXACTLY who I am. Personally, I can't wait ..."

Well, you'll just have to wait a little longer, "Demonologist".

Because you have not explained by whose authority you 'invitation' was put out. I mean, what authority do you have to invite me to some private house? Unless it is your own, of course!

Please answer. I am sure everyone else as well is awaiting claarification on your lattest 'offer,m "Demomologist".

So, over to you . . .

David Farrant

David Farrant said...

ANOTHER POINT

Must admit to being slightly confused here. "Demomologist", because as you keep insisting you are not Bonky, what would be the point in my meeting yourself"

I am sure we would all like to know?

Similaarly, as you keep claoming not to be Bonky, what has this copyright issue got to do with yourself?

I am sure we would all like to know that too.

Can you perhaps enlighten us?

David Farrant

Vampirologist said...

I said nothing about a private house.

I said Farrant is invited to meet me.

Not anyone else.

Just me.

Now does the hunched one understand?

David Farrant said...

"Similaarly, as you keep claoming not to be Bonky, what has this copyright issue got to do with yourself?"

Sorry, I most definately DO NOT undertand. You keep answering that you are not Bonky.

Which is why I asked, just what has all this to do with you?

We are still waiting fo an answer.

David Farrant

Vampirologist said...

According to the Hunchback's twisted logic, I could ask him what has Seán Manchester's ecclesial standing got to with him? What has Seán Manchester's wife and family got to do with the Hunchback? What has a host of others things the Hunchback takes it upon himself to discuss on the internet and publish in pamphlets got to with him if he is not Seán Manchester?

Farrant asks what has it got to do with me if I am not Seán Manchester?

Why does he not ask the same of others who are in his stable? What has it got to with any of them? They still poke their noses in and comment from one year to the next. Some even start up websites, forums, boards and blogs to do so. Such is their obsession with Seán Manchester!

My interest in Farrant is commensurate to Rob B's, Rob M's, Craig A's, Barbara G's and a handful of others who support the Hunchback's vendetta whose interest in Seán Manchester is far greater than my interest in the Hunchback.

Some of us viewing all this occasionally get sick and tired of witnessing the daily abuse meted out by the Hunchback and his depraved mob. One or two of us feel like giving them a taste of their own medicine, which is why I have offered to meet the Hunchback to confront him.

By the way, I find it incredible after all this time that the Hunchback has not twigged who Baldry's Cat is. One day the penny might drop ...

Baldry's Cat said...

"I have offered to meet the Hunchback to confront him."

David, why not give this fellow a time and date to meet you at the Woodman and have him pay for a round of drinks. Maybe by meeting him you will resolve his problems, and then he won't have to post here any more.

(Please remember to wear the stake-proof vest)

Vampirologist said...

No sooner have I said "I find it incredible after all this time that the Hunchback has not twigged who Baldry's Cat is" than Baldry's Cat responds "Maybe by meeting him you will resolve his problems, and then he won't have to post here any more."

Look, Baldry's Cat, if you don't want me posting here any more you only have to say.

Baldry's Cat said...

I thought you didn't enjoy posting here. If you do, never mind.

Vampirologist said...

Back to my finding it incredible after all this time that the Hunchback has not twigged who Baldry's Cat is. One day the penny might drop, but obviously not one day soon.

Humpy always was a bit slow in the brains department.

David Farrant said...

"David, why not give this fellow a time and date to meet you at the Woodman and have him pay for a round of drinks. Maybe by meeting him you will resolve his problems, and then he won't have to post here any more"

That's not a bad idea you know Cat.

Well, are you up for that "Demonologist"? Want to meet me in the Woodman? That's fine by me.

We could arrange it here.

David Farrant

Vampirologist said...

Tonight (Sunday 20th) at 11.00pm.

That's thirteen hours away.

I'll wait until the bell.

No lager-lout morons in tow.

I know what the Hunchback looks like. He won't recognise me. So I'll be watching closely and I'll know if he's up to any funny business.

The hunched one had better turn up!

He won't get a second chance.

David Farrant said...

"Tonight (Sunday 20th) at 11.00pm.
That's thirteen hours away"

Sorry "Demonogist", I don't work to '13 hour deadlines'.

Apart from which, the pub closes at 11pm.

So make it next Sunday at 7pm. You can't get out of buying me a drink that easily.

David Farrant

Vampirologist said...

Farrant had his chance.

He's a total waste of time!

I don't know why I ever bothered.

I admit it. Seán Manchester was right and I was wrong about how best to deal with Farrant.

He should be ignored. Totally ignored.

Let him carry on with his infantile nonsense. It will only appeal to those as maladjusted as Farrant. None of these people should merit my time. None of them will any more!