Post a Comment

Comments

• anthonyhogg December 25, 2011
  It was a little bit of column a, a little bit of column b. Ask yourself this, Timey, if it's all 'pointless', then why do the sock puppets endlessly 'debate'? Speaking of sock puppets, the whole thing degenerated into a farce when folk like 'WilliamLaw' and co started showing up - obviously here to promote the comic. Of course, 'Anonymous', 'TheVampirologist' and 'Time_Traveller' didn't make their 'jobs' any harder. I mean, ffs, even Santa made an appearance! Regarding what Jamie said - it's true that those, particular sock puppets couldn't put their money where their mouth was. It works both ways, of course. As is usual when these 'discussions' get out of hand, there's someone to always bail 'em out - sockpuppets, usually - or they simply up and leave. I've seen the same process on many forums. In the meantime, I hope everyone has/had a safe and Merry Christmas. Especially Dylan: whose inbox must look like World War 3.
• Timelord December 24, 2011
  No Jamie, the reason people have stopped posting here is that it's essentially pointless. Now is your daddy going to raise Pan again? :D That is really believable!
• chattygef23 December 24, 2011
  Sean or Time Traveller ran off with his tail between his legs when things got too much for him. When his usual threats and insults didn't put anyone off and he couldn't get away with his lies anymore he laid low in the hope it'd all go away. Now he's pretending to be Santa. Bit more believable than the rest of his nonsense I suppose :-)
• anthonyhogg December 24, 2011
  Fr. Christmas, 'It ended with these words: "Who wants to engage with such nincompoops? Certainly not me." Preceding it with, ''They obviously haven't got the message from Time Traveller who they are still bleating. And he last posted more than eighty comments back weeks ago!' So, who wanted to talk with 'nincompoops? He did. Merry Christmas to you, too! David, any thoughts on Red's electromagnetic theory, re: sightings at Highgate Cemetery?
• chattygef23 December 24, 2011
  Oh dear, seems like Father Christmas isn't quite the jolly old elf he's made out to be :-) Looks to me like Sean's wearing yet another silly hat. I reckon the Santa costume will look better than his purple dress though!
• Father_Christmas December 24, 2011
  There are a couple of people still lurking on here who don't appear to have anything better to do with themselves while everyone else celebrates. They obviously haven't got the message from Time Traveller who they are still bleating. And he last posted more than eighty comments back weeks ago! Still, it's good to know that the Christmas spirit is alive and well other than on this dying thread which topic has ony provided an excuse for them to unleash their familiar baiting. Time Traveller's last post is not difficult to understand. It ended with these words: "Who wants to engage with such nincompoops? Certainly not me." The two still posting relentlessly about the focus of their obsession patently qualify as counting among those nicompoops Time Traveller no longer wishes to engage. I honestly can't say I blame him. Have a Merry Christmas!
• Anonymous December 23, 2011
  Hi all, just to stop Sean moaning I'm actually Jamie Farrant and this is my default and only (take heed Sean) username. It's funny how Time Traveller (aka Sean) seems to have stopped posting on here. No surprises though really, it's what he does whenever he gets caught out lying. What with the nazi/occultist/compensation/fake bishop stuff (need I go on), can't say I blame him really. Ah well, looks like we'll just have to carry on without him :-))
• DavidFarrant December 22, 2011
  PS Sorry, that word 'composition', should really have been typed as ' Crimnial conpensation'; which Sean has been maintaining. Sorry, my fault for typing too fast, and just trying to clarify all this inane nonsense! David Farrant
• DavidFarrant December 22, 2011
  STILL waiting for a reply Sean (sorry, 'Time Tr\avel' or 'Time Traveller' or what ever the curruent alias happens to be), so, when exactly did you receive 'criminal compensation' from the Courts to agree that you had approached the Bradishe's issuing 'black magic' threats' as 'compition for your wild story? Of course, you didn't receive any such 'componsition', Sean, and, as usual, you are lying . . .! As asked, Please explain here . . . David Farrant, President, British Psychic and Occult Society.
• DavidFarrant December 21, 2011
  Yes 'Time Travel'. I think we are all waiting for your answer to this important question. After all, it is really a vital one . . . You have stated on numerous occasions, Sean, that you were 'awared criminal compensation' affter having been found guilty of making threatening black magic telephone calls to John's wife back in 1970. You have stated that this was not the case, and that you were compensated by the Courts then - or shortly afterwards. John is asking you to produce Court records of this 'compensation', and official dates when this was awarded. So far you have been unable to back up your public.statement. I think many people will be wondering why. Unless this is just one of your many 'fibs', Sean! David Farrant, President, British Psychic and Occult Society.
• Anonymous December 20, 2011
  You seem to be forgetting the two threatening letters you wrote to my address, Manchester. One of these said: "Only for the moment are we letting you laugh; never again will you cross my path. Don't be a silly boy, revoke Farrant's bail or odd things will happen to your wife and children". These letters were given to the Barnet Police long before the court case and just another reason I was given an absolute discharge and YOU were landed with a criminal conviction by being bound over to keep the peace on the sum of £200 and warned not to telephone my wife again with your silly black magic threats. And another thing: you were not 'awarded any criminal compensation', that's just another lie. If you were this would be on the court records. Can you point us to these records? " John's last post here}. Everyone is still waiting for your answer to this, 'Time Travel'. So can you supply the necessary references to the court records?
• anthonyhogg December 18, 2011
  By the way, David, what do you think of Red's electromagnetic theory, re: Highgate sightings?
• anthonyhogg December 18, 2011
  Thanks for the, uh, kind offer Dave. I better start saving!
• Father_Christmas December 18, 2011
  Surely little Johnnie Hogg would like something for Christmas? There are not many days left for him to make up his mind.
• DavidFarrant December 17, 2011
  "And, apart from obviously a much closer relationship with David Farrant, what would young John Anthony Hogg like for Christmas?" asks Father Christmas. Thanks Father Xmas, you are most kind. I do not want any toys for Christmas (for example toy trainsets or anything like that) but if you could see your way clear to leaving me a bottle of vintage wine or whisky (or both), that would be much appreciated. While I'm here, interested readers may be interested to know that, as from January next year, the Church of Farrant will be holding weekly surgeries for our flock at our new premises on Fortis Green Road, Muswell Hill, which will also be doubling up as the Highgate Vampire Museum and Resources Centre. In my capacity as Supreme leader I shall be presiding over these sessions, at which all my congregation are invited to take advantage of my expertise and parochial charity, in a confidential environment. Should young Mr Hogg wish to book an appointment to discuss his concerns he would be most welcome, but I would encourage him to book a slot early as appointments will be on a first come first served basis and we are anticipating huge demand for my services during these bleak times of economic and spiritual drought. I cannot promise that this will lead to a 'closer relationship' with myself, but as a seasonal gesture of goodwill I am willing to offer spiritual succour to our antipodean antagonist at a reduced consultancy rate of £375 an hour (plus 10p per sheet charges for photocopies, all rights reserved). Blessings to you, Father Farrant.
• anthonyhogg December 17, 2011
  P.S.: No kidding on the 'Apostle of Christ' thing! Wolf in sheep's clothing, on the other hand...
• anthonyhogg December 17, 2011
  P.S.: No kidding on the 'Apostle of Christ' thing! Wolf in sheep's clothing, maybe...
• anthonyhogg December 17, 2011
  Gareth, the source I asked you about was the version of David's 6/2/1970 letter minus the 'I have no knowledge of the supernatural' bit. But cheers for those leads. I can tell you, though, that the Camden Archive version features that paragraph, so I was surprised to see you saying it wasn't in the letter. I haven't asked David anything about the Gatehouse. But I have previously asked him about Victorian era sources, though. In his books and NW article, he claims that there was a 'common tale' during the Victorian era of a tall, dark man who disappeared into the cemetery walls. If it was a 'common tale', then I'd expect a contemporary reference to go with it - as I'm sure you would. I'm very interested in sources that independently verify hauntings at the cemetery prior 1970. Contemporary ones. So your 1967 article may be of some assistance. Aside from David's research, I'd like you to clarify something from your own work, if that's ok. In 'Lure of the sinister', you seemed to be suggestion that the vandalism, rituals, etc. at the cemetery were not the work of real satanists. Have I misread you? I can quote the relevant sections if you like.
• Father_Christmas December 17, 2011
  And, apart from obviously a much closer relationship with David Farrant, what would young John Anthony Hogg like for Christmas?
• Smoothie_John December 16, 2011
  You seem to be forgetting the two threatening letters you wrote to my address, Manchester. One of these said: "Only for the moment are we letting you laugh; never again will you cross my path. Don't be a silly boy, revoke Farrant's bail or odd things will happen to your wife and children". These letters were given to the Barnet Police long before the court case and just another reason I was given an absolute discharge and YOU were landed with a criminal conviction by being bound over to keep the peace on the sum of £200 and warned not to telephone my wife again with your silly black magic threats. And another thing: you were not 'awarded any criminal compensation', that's just another lie. If you were this would be on the court records. Can you point us to these records? Of course not! Simply because this did not happen. You are a habitual liar Mr. Manchester.
• DavidFarrant December 16, 2011
  For Mr. Hogg: you asked me about my archive sources. My first proper investigations were done in a private cuttings collection which was donated to the Pagan Federation with the intention that they would come into the public domain, which so far has not happened, but fortunately I was given full access to them. After that I consulted material in Islington Central Library, Hornsey Library, Camden Archives, Hendon Library, the British Newspaper Library, David Farrant’s private collection, and John Pope’s private collection, and with apologies for any omissions. I understand that you asked David for sources regarding to hauntings in Highgate in 1967, in particular in The Gatehouse. My notes say that there was an article about this in the Hampstead and Highgate Express in January of 1967, but I don’t have a copy to hand, though I could try and get a transcript if you like. As you have been alleged to turn into liquid, which some people have doubted, maybe someone else remembers ‘The Trigan Empire’ in Look and Learn magazine from the early 1970s, a science fiction series set on the planet Elekton, where a man was able to turn himself into a pool of water and then back into his true form, using this to commit various crimes, such as breaking into locked rooms by flowing under the gap under the door; eventually he was struck by lightning and evaporated. The internet is currently down in this part of London, so whilst I have written this on Friday evening, it may be a while before it can be posted. Gareth J. Medway. P.S. :- A man who signs himself “An Apostle of Christ” obviously has a superfluity of the traditional Christian virtue of humility.
• Smoothie_John December 15, 2011
  We all know what can happen when Manchester gets on the blower. I wouldn't encourage it myself.
• Anonymous December 15, 2011
  Mr Manchester is certainly aware of my private telephone number as he phoned me numerous times throuout the early 1980's. I recorded many of these conversations and indeed, I still have the tapes. He would often phone to confirm a time when it would be convenient to call around, I also had his private phone number of the address where he was then living in New Southgate. I recorded these conversations as well whenever I had cause to phone him. These tapes completely give a lie to a common claim made by Mr Manxchester that he does not have my phone number. Not that I am encouraging him now to phone me again. I doubt that he would anyway after discovering that any calls he made, would certainly be recorded. David Farrant.
• Neighbours_Son December 15, 2011
  Have you tried directory enquiries?
• Lord_Manchester December 15, 2011
  I don't have his phone number.
• Gerard_Issaman December 15, 2011
  Manchester why not stop your grumbling, grow a pair of bollocks, and do something. Pick up the bloody telephone and call Farrant and put an end to the nonsense once and for all. What's stopping you? Do you imagine headlines saying 'HOLY BISHOP CALLS CONVICTED SATANIST, MAKES FIRST MOVE' will be published on the front page of every newspaper? Don't flatter yourself into thinking the press are at all interested in this at all!
• Lord_Manchester December 15, 2011
  Rage mumble grumble blah blah blah blah mumble mumble Farrant blah blah Farrant, blah blah Farrant blah, blah blah blah, mumble grumble Farrant, blah blah blah Farrant blah blah, blah blah Farrant this Farrant that, blah blah blah Farrant.
• anthonyhogg December 15, 2011
  David, no worries on the 'Anonymous' thing. The sign-in function for this thing can get a little buggy. As to the appearance, that sounds good. I was wondering where the transcripts were coming from! In terms of original footage, that sounds great. Fingers crossed. I'm certainly aware of the 60s/70s habit of erasing footage. Quite horrifying, actually (especially for Dr. Who fans!). Personally speaking, I don't think you instigated the mass vampire hunt, and based on the material I've been reviewing, it's pretty clear words were put in your mouth and/or altered from your original statements. Apart from Manchester, it's also fairly clear than the papers tended to 'paraphrase' quite a bit!
• Anonymous December 15, 2011
  Anthony, Please forgive the 'anonymous' label, but not my fault. This site is not only extremely slow, but now has apparently refuesed to recognise my Facebook account. This means no profile pic. at the moment - but sure you won't miss that! In answer to your 'normal' question (for a change!); I do have several b/w pictures taken from my ITV television appearance in March 1970. I also have the audio tape. I have been told from somebody who worked freelance for ITV that the original footage of the programme has not been destroyed (as I thought) but was indeed saved in their archeives. She has promised to secure me a copy of this soon for private showing, but not for public release without prior permission. I can't say exactly when this will be, but assure you she has the matter in hand. The presenter of that programme, Sandra Harris, also gave evidence in Court for me at the Highgate Court in my libel actions against the Daily Express and News of the World. I also have transcrips of her sworn evidence when she stated that it was Mr Manchester, not myself, who instigated the 'mass vampire hunt' at Highgate Cemetery in March 1970, by telling viewers that I intended to 'hunt down the vampire'! He said nothing on the television programme about being concerned for my safety. Those were statements he issued to the Ham & High and were not said by him in person on the television programme. David Farrant, President, BPOS
• anthonyhogg December 14, 2011
  Smoothie, not to mention that David is visibly older in the pics, as a simple comparison between his 1970 appearance will reveal, e.g. http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_VO4O4a5g0aw/TNPUpCpWClI/AAAAAAAAAK8/hR0qfOMv_rM/s1600/DFclownHC.jpg That said, 'BakersDozen' may've been taking the piss, much like yourself, 'Gerard_Issaman', 'Br_Keith', 'Lord_Manchester', 'WilliamLaw', 'Neighbours_Son', and other identity-hijackers keen on promoting the comic.
• Gerard_Issaman December 14, 2011
  Look Bishop or Lord or whatever you are dressing up as now. Are you actually saying that Anthony Hogg becomes some form of fossil fuel every night? He hides inside gas pumps so exorcists won't find him? Where did you dream such tripe up? You have certainly gotten worse since the 1970's when you were selling that blood sucking vampire tosh.
• Smoothie_John December 14, 2011
  Errr.....OK. Well they certainly exceed the 'sales' of cups of tea and sandwiches to you in the tea shop, Titus.
• Lord_Manchester December 14, 2011
  It is too much to expect that grossly undereducated cretins posting anti-Seán Manchester rhetoric with view to promoting their own personal obsession with a man whom they have never met to understand exactly how the occult forces both demonaic and the diabolical can exist. But exist they do, and Seán Manchester through his years of study and erudition has gleaned the arcane knowledge to recognise such mysterious powers and reveal their inner workings. Hogg indeed has the ability to transform into a viscous liquid at will, and cling to the inner lining of the multifarious hoses and pipes of petrol pumps by night. There he is safe from exorcists and demonologists who would otherwise be able to deal with him in the ancient manner. It is all very rudimentary to one such as Bishop Manchester, whose sale of published works exceeds that of many other scholars in his field.
• Smoothie_John December 14, 2011
  I agree with you, Hoggy. Check this style guide, as if we need one! http://www.nightofjoyvintage.com/shop.php?crn=221&rn=1333&action=show_detail Note - 1970s, Sean, 1970s - just like everyone else can see...one could even be forgiven for sporting this in 1982... but not 1969.
• anthonyhogg December 14, 2011
  David, yes, just as I suspected. It was fairly ludicrous for the guy - pretending to be Yossell Baker ('BakersDozen') - to claim they were taken in the late 60s. In the meantime, do you have footage of the 'Today' interviews (13/3/1970)?
• Br_Keith December 14, 2011
  'How could Anthony Hogg possibly 'transform himself into a liquid'? Manchester this is going too far, even for you.' Gerard Issaman - I encourage you to look to the works of Bishop Sean Manchester, all available solely from Gothic Press (c) . All is possible with +Sean at the helm. At first I thought it was just another bad comedown but then +Sean showed me the light. I am going to bed now, I have had too much special cake and +Sean says I should keep my mouth shut when I've been on the cake. Nighty night all. Br Keith
• Lord_Manchester December 14, 2011
  If a woman can transform into a giant spider, a boy from Oz can surely transform into a liquid.
• Gerard_Issaman December 14, 2011
  How could Anthony Hogg possibly 'transform himself into a liquid'? Manchester this is going too far, even for you.
• Anonymous December 14, 2011
  I cannot believe Sean (aka 'Time Travel) is now trying to dispute the dates of the photographs I posted of John Bradish on my Blog. The first was one of a set taken at my wedding reception in June 1979; the other one taken when John and his friend (who he met in 1980) came over to my flat for dinner one evening in 1983. The photographs were NOT taken 'in 1969'! and can be proved to having been taken on these dates. Come on, Sean, you are just trying to make your self look even sillier that usual! David Farrant, President, BPOS.
• A Facebook user December 14, 2011
  http://manchestersevilcabal.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/24february20112528225291.jpg
• A Facebook user December 14, 2011
  sorry...here's the whole thing.....http://manchestersevilcabal.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/24february20112528225291.jpg ....
• A Facebook user December 14, 2011
  Hey Sean, you're gonna love this.....http://manchestersevilcabal.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/24february20112528225291.jpg.....makes interesting reading too, looks like you've been caught out yet again..... ooopsy :-)))
• Lord_Manchester December 14, 2011
  Of course Hogg has no scruples when it comes to publishing the Bishop's address but oinks mightily when the goose is fed to the gander and his own residence status is revealed. Hogg's residence consists of a petrol station on the outskirts of Smiths Gully where he is not gainfully employed but merely a loafer and layabout. Hogg, it's certain, has the ability to transform himself into a liquid at night, and so is able to cleverly secret himself into the hoses of the petrol pumps and remain there throughout the evening, only to emerge at dawn through the process of evaporation and begin his anti-Seán Manchester activity again. By contrast, Bishop Manchester enjoys a 5,000 sq. m. residence with amenities comparable to a five star luxury hotel, including a....damn, have I been writing in the third person again??? I thought I was logged in to the Time_Traveller account but I see the bloody icon for Lord_Manchester instead. That stupid clod of an IT consultant (I'll tan his hide for this) has set up the web interface so whatever I type is automatically posted, so there's no covering my tracks. Hell and damn!
• Lord_Manchester December 14, 2011
  'David, do you have a copy of the 'Today' interviews (13 March 1970)? ' pleads Hogg. More petty-minded maneuvering from Hogg who follows up with his usual negative remarks without a trace of constructive content, aimed, of course, at anyone supportive of Bishop Seán Manchester. He is also critical of David Farrant, but much less so since Hogg has managed to ingratiate himself with Farrant's eldest son. Hogg started calling himself "The Vampirologist" a few weeks ago, previous to which he called himself "Amateur Vampirologist" prior to which "The Overseer" and prior to that "The Inquisitive One." He lives at ***** T**** Lane in M****** Australia, 30****. Several times he has plied the Bishop with his silly questions in hopes of gaining intelligence with which to add more damaging material to his amateurish blog. He might as well ask David Cameron or President Obama (who is a mulatto) to respond to his petty inquiries for all the lack of attention he has gotten. Bishop Manchester (who is of pure blood) wants nothing to do with the aboriginal Hogg, who has continually pestered him about trivial matters. Hogg's writings derive from the tattlings of trouble-makers with an openly anti-Seán Manchester agenda. Not one source relied upon by Hogg is a VRS source, and if he were to use a VRS source, it would be immediately removed by the Bishop's staff under DMCA provisions.
• Neighbours_Son December 14, 2011
  Mr. Law, they have the Cabal meetings in London. Unless someone is going to carry me there and back, I am not attending. Jason.
• anthonyhogg December 14, 2011
  David, do you have a copy of the 'Today' interviews (13 March 1970)?
• A Facebook user December 14, 2011
  I think he carries off his purple dress very well :-)
• Br_Keith December 13, 2011
  'His purple biretta is a bit wobbly and spinning out of control.' This is a crude and libelous attack upon one of the last knights of St George who is prepared to fight for the restoration of the Grail and... other things which are very important but which have slipped my mind for the present. Anyway my objection to your post is that Bishop Manchester wears a biretta of Roman Pink. For advice about any other matters, I would refer you to Bishop Manchester.
• WilliamLaw December 13, 2011
  Jason I just read this again. Have you agreed to go to one of these cabal meetings?
• Smoothie_John December 13, 2011
  'He was something of a slime-ball, if you get my meaning.' You need to chill the f*** out mate before *someone* kicks you in the shins. Again.
• WilliamLaw December 13, 2011
  Bonky why does your head appear to have been lopped off, did it swell up so big that in in the end it finally fell off?
• WilliamLaw December 13, 2011
  Jason don't you answer him about trains, he's trying to get you while your young like he did to that Timelord chap, get your brain all mangled so you grow up warped. Stick with playing XBox with me and you'll be alright although I still think Resident Evil is probably not the best idea but then if you don't have nightmares or join in riots your OK. Just because a grown up says something is right doesn't mean it is.
• Lord_Manchester December 13, 2011
  Let's assume for the moment that you are not a sock puppet with Farrant pulling the strings but are a genuinely misguided stooge following your master's every deviant wish. Where is Farrant in all of this? Slouched in his attic bedsit with a lit fag and a bottle of wine to his lips, alternately dozing and slaking his depraved lust with his Satan-devoted strumpet? Planning his next attack on a consecrated member of the clergy? If I were you I'd free myself from this parasitic influence and find a more rewarding way to spend my time. Toy trains for example.
• A Facebook user December 13, 2011
  Ignore him, Jason. His purple biretta is a bit wobbly and spinning out of control. He thinks David controls a vast cadre of brainwashed zombies who do his bidding. We are only a medium sized cadre in fact. See you at the next Cabal meeting!
• Lord_Manchester December 13, 2011
  Jason, do you like toy trains?
• Neighbours_Son December 13, 2011
  I don't understand any of this. Jason.
• A Facebook user December 13, 2011
  See here sunshine, I wouldn't talk if I was you. I mean what with your numerous and colourful identities such as "Vampirologist", "Veritas", "Time Traveller"...well, the list goes on and on. People in glass houses, etc.
• Lord_Manchester December 13, 2011
  You there, "Tony Sheridan". You're a perfect example of the depths Farrant's Cabal will stoop to in creating a vile array of sock puppets to carry out his bidding. Your Facebook profile reveals that your only friends are Farrant's other thugs, hence you are a manufactured entity.
• A Facebook user December 13, 2011
  Borrowed a van today and Trish and I delivered two boxes of Comic Books to Essex.
• Lord_Manchester December 13, 2011
  This has gone far enough, thank you! It's time I stepped in and restored a little order here. As a prolific author I've had a score of religious titles published by Holy Grail and Gothic Press and also by Leslie Frewin (no relation to Farrant's thug Kenny) Books, Coronet Books and Hodder and Stoughton, among others. Dictating all these books to my secretary leaves me little time for such nonsensical idiocy as goes on on Atlas Obscura. I am too busy to address blogs such as this where I am mentioned (of which there are literally hundreds) and I neither see them nor know about them. However this particular one appears to have been sadly hijacked and perverted by a notorious band of monomaniacal miscreants driven and directed by a lewdly lecherous and lusting layabout by the name of David Farrant. Forgive me if I now go off the subject at hand and plunge into a reverie about David Farrant from which it is doubtful I will ever return. Farrant, as anyone knows, lived a most squalid existence in a disused bunker situated below #10 Downing Street in the early 1970's, egressing only by night for a scrap of cheese and to debauch unsuspecting women. Often he would roam the streets by moonlight with his pet iguana on his shoulder, crooning salty sea chantys to it as he peered into ladies windows. Farrant's alleged sightings of the vampire were to coincide with the time when he was ensconced in the bunker formerly housing the prime minister and his war staff during the Blitz. His interest was not the occult at this time, but in plastering and heating plant maintenance; mostly wattle and daub and HVAC systems. This earned him the nickname ‘The Big Bopper'. Relishing the attention he was now receiving, following his alleged sightings of heating systems that were in violation of ordinances, he took foolish risks and ended up being arrested in August 1970 for being in a tube station without proper fare. His vampire hunting days were yet to come, however I'd like to mention toy trains for a moment, since that is my other obsession when I am not able to dog Farrant around the Internet using various of my aliases. I have just acquired a Hornby Thomas and the Great Discovery Set! It includes Electric Thomas, Annie and Clarabel Coaches, 2 open wagons, an Electric Controller and TrackMat, an Oval of track with Siding. As you may have guessed, it is from the Hornby Thomas The Tank Engine range. Excuse me, I am going to go play with it now.
• WilliamLaw December 13, 2011
  Courst I read the bloody thing Jason. Felt compelled to see how much stupider it could get. The only bit that made me laugh was when Manchester fell over the cliff and Farrant saved him by holding onto his ankle. I know its only a comic but I don't know why he didn't just let go and done everyone a favour. Thanks to your mum about the guttering, I'll sort it all out with her tomorrow.
• Neighbours_Son December 13, 2011
  Mr. Law, Mum says don't bother with the guttering, she will call the estate people for that. I am sorry you do not like the comic book. Did you read the page with the Bonky song on it?
• BarbaraGreen December 13, 2011
  All this twaddle about vampires is so really dickipoggy. Even Sir Gareth doesn't believe in them altough he did recite an exorcism to keep evil spirts at bay when he stayed at my house in 2006 when they were getting in through my louvre windows. But tehy were dickiloggy spirits - not vampires - but the result of magical spells on the part of M15 and Lady Armytage and Notts CC. It was all a conspiracy to slience me about my Robin Hood revelations/. Anyway it didn't work, and Catherine and me have re-opened the case files and intend to get to the bottom of this conspiracy and expose Red Monkey's dickipoggy Freemason connections about which we have amassed a vast amount of information so watch this space. We have already succeeded in our dog poo campiagn to clear up the Green Belt, and Catherine was an invaluable asset and not afraid to get her hands dirty. Us Northern women don't stand for this sort of chauvinistic cap doffing dickipoggy. Tata everybody, Barbara
• Gerard_Issaman December 13, 2011
  Oh, I may have gotten him mixed up with another Swami. Manchester did not have anything to do with the burial stunt. But he WAS billing himself as Britain's Greatest Psychic and claiming to read people's minds, and I seem to recall he did wear a turban of some type or kind. My apologies.
• Gerard_Issaman December 13, 2011
  I'd also like to add that Manchester was a constant pest at Ham n' High offices in the early 1980s promoting various and sundry of his not unimaginative publicity stunts. I recall one memorable occasion on which he wished to promote himself as The Great Swami Manchester, wearing a bejeweled turban and a cheesecloth robe, and have us print his claim of having been buried alive in a steel coffin for 7 days without food and water. Another time he showed up at my offices dressed in skin tight breeches with high boots and a lace trimmed womens blouse, declaring himself to be a Lord and long lost offspring of Byron who demanded that Parliament recognise him as such.
• Timelord December 13, 2011
  The debate here is really screwed thanks to David and his "friends". Hows Pan today Dave? Your deceased Earth deity?
• WilliamLaw December 13, 2011
  Jason I do not know how you can read such tripe at your age. But at least we know where the aliens fit into it now so that's clarified. I am still angry by the way about people on here - yes YOU Bonky, for one - saying I am dead. It is a pretty sick thing to say. But what more could be expected from you lot. Now I see that space cadet longhair has turned up again. Looks like nothing on earth. No wonder he's a friend of Manchester's. That broken guttering blew away in the storm last night by the way, Jason. Have to call in Mr Potter to climb up there. More expense I suppose, its going to cost me an arm and a leg.
• Br_Keith December 13, 2011
  Hey man, all this is spacing me out a bit at the moment. I don't know if I am coming or going. I know one thing though, I'll be going to Bishop Manchester's church retreat again this year for Christmas dinner. What a cool spread of food if last year is anything to go by. As well as being a gorgeous +chick, she sure knows how to cook good food. I just wish +Sean'd stop telling her to take the wine away from me, when everybody else gets to drink as much as they like. But apart from that its spliffing good fun, and I really dig playing with +Sean's Hornby trainset after dinner. Man, that form of entertainment really gets you on a high. Happy Christmas +Sean and +Sarah, see you at your pad Christmas Eve xx. Kisses are for +Sarah of course not for you +Sean!!
• Neighbours_Son December 13, 2011
  Mr. Law, are you there? I left a comic book in a poly bag for you on your gate. Jason.
• Gerard_Issaman December 13, 2011
  If you want to see Manchester wearing the lipstick and rouge it's no trouble at all since he's proudly uploaded photos of it and encouraged others to copy these. One such is here: http://www.vampyrekisses.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/SMthamestv1970.jpg
• Anonymous December 13, 2011
  All the more reason to contact the genuine Gerald Isaaman because this twerp can't spell either his first or last name and is so obviously a fake it hardly needs stating. I would love to hear what the real Mr Isaaman has to say on the matter of the BOS instead of having someone emulate him. Pretending to be the ex-editor and adopting his name with Mr Farrant's mandatory spelling mistakes is a bit of a give-away. How many more sock puppets is David Farrant going to introduce?
• Gerard_Issaman December 13, 2011
  Having read this bitter online row for weeks now, I think it's high time I speak up. Some will recognise me as former editor of Ham n' High now moved on to the greener pastures of Marlborough, but you can just call me Gerry. I was was visited at my offices in February of 1970 by an individual calling himself Sean Byron Manchester. He was dressed in a flamboyant kit; a red-lined cloak, a top hat, and carrying a gilded walking stick. I distinctly recall thinking "this man is wearing lipstick and rouge, he must be an actor promoting some type of theatrical event or something". But no, the makeup was apparently (I later learned) intended to create the appearance of a Transylvanian Count along the lines of Dracula. Indeed, he told me that the ‘ghost’ seen at Highgate was really a vampire and a Rumanian nobleman whose followers brought his body to Highgate. I thought he was BARKING mad, however, against my good judgement, we published a few of his remarks for fun. In those days we often cobbled together some harmless amusement for readers to help boost circulation. When Manchester later repeated his ridiculous claims on the television, the joke was on us, as readership began to doubt our seriousness. We quickly jettisoned the whole affair, but Manchester continued to shop his "vampire story" around to other papers.
• BakersDozen December 13, 2011
  Oh, and another word in your shell-like, Anthony. Those photos of Smoothie were taken in, I'd say, 1969 at the latest. I bumped into him now and again in the seventies and his appearance changed a lot with much shorter hair, nothing covering the ears, and a touch of grey. He ran a small double-glazing business in Whetstone and I chatted to him when I was in the area. Funnily enough, he didn't have too good a word to say about David when I spoke to him. I was under the impression that he had lost contact with his old mate, but yes, those photos on David's blog and the one used on here by some chump calling himself "Smoothie John" were definitely taken in the late sixties.
• BakersDozen December 13, 2011
  I'll be straight with you, mate, I'm a bit of a technophobe and that's putting it mildly, but here I am for the time being. Look, I wasn't referring to this site, although I think I might have been referred to once or twice. I was referring to the stitch up by Kev Demant a long time back in some newsletters he did for David. I did not say any of the things he wrote as quotes from me. Reading through some of what's on here I see you live in Oz. I don't know what the law is there, Anthony, but here in GB there is no such thing as "technically guilty" unless it's the newspapers you are quoting and relying on them is not a good move. Here you are either guilty or not guilty, there's nothing technical about it. Smoothie was found guilty and it couldn't have happened to a more deserving fellow from what I could see. Nobody trusted him in the Prince of Wales where he popped in from time to time, I wouldn't call him a regular, and I didn't like the way he treated his wife. It made me and quite a few other regulars squirm. He was something of a slime-ball, if you get my meaning. His only mate in the Prince was David.
• anthonyhogg December 13, 2011
  David, cheers for the explanation. I don't know why you keep downplaying your connection to Hill and deferring one to Manchester (it's not like I've denied he knew him), but thanks for your explanation, nonetheless. Anonymous, Bradish was found 'technically guilty' but given an 'absolute discharge'. Meanwhile, Manchester was 'bound over to keep the peace' for £200 and told to stay away from Mrs. Bradish for 12 months. It's obvious the court favoured Bradish's excuse over Manchester's alleged innocence. BakersDozen - who's here no doubt in 'reaction' to 'Smoothie_John's appearance - going by the clothing in the pics, it's obvious they were taken in the late '70s/early 80s. You haven't been mentioned once during the course of this thread, either. It's a shame this thing's turned into a den for sockpuppets. I've a feeling if Dylan was able to run a trace on IPs, we'd see a lot of usernames originating from the same location.
• Anonymous December 13, 2011
  I wish Jamie Farrant would leave it out and stick to doing what he does best ...... nothing ...... while giving the rest of the world the finger. Ha! Ha! The apple doesn't fall far from the tree, does it?
• Anonymous December 13, 2011
  "....... the 'assault charge' unsuccessfully brought by Mr Manchester ......." This is typical misdirection by Mr Farrant. The truth of the matter is the assault charge was proven and Mr Bradish was found guilty as charged for which he received a criminal conviction for assault. Sean Manchester was therefore successful, not unsuccessful as claimed by Mr Farrant.
• A Facebook user December 13, 2011
  'Bakers Dozen' ha ha, leave it out Sean!
• BakersDozen December 13, 2011
  I don't make a habit of this because I've been stitched up once before by David and his mate who put words I didn't say in my mouth. I'm none too pleased about that. Anyway, I was a regular in the Prince of Wales in the days when Alan Compton ran the place. I knew David who was then known as Birdman, Smoothie John (Bradish) and all the rest and I can tell you straight away that those photos of Smoothie published by David are how Smoothie looked in the sixties when he used to drink in the Village. In 1979 and 1982 he had much shorter hair which was already going grey. David asked to use my name and address to write made up letters to the papers and I also heard David say he made the calls to Gilly. Tony was someone who drank in the Prince and I can tell you straight away that he was not a member of the BOS and neither was David. I liked Tony. Smoothie was a very slippery customer. David was shifty. Don't expect me to get involved in all this because I've had David try that before. I don't like being mentioned all these years later and regret helping David with his ghost scam by letting him use my address. The whole thing was very silly.
• A Facebook user December 13, 2011
  Tony Hill was never a member of the BOS, but he did know people who were. One of these people was Mr. Sean Manchester, who was just a provisional member, before his expulsion by the full Committee in 1970, that is. Hill did have an avid interest in the black arts, and on one occasion claimed that he had actually conjured up the devil whose face (he claimed at least) he saw in 'cigarette smoke'. By profession Hill was a milkman, but to further his interest in the black occult, he frequently visited cemeteries and took photographs in crypts. He was a close friend and associate of Mr. Manchester's, who frequently accompanied him on these visits and took photographs as well. One of these cemeteries was Kensal Green in North London, where the two men (sometimes accompanied by others) would take photographs after they had trespassed in its honeycomb of crypts. After John Bradish had stood bail for me during the 'vampire hunting case' in 1970, both Mr Hill and Mr Manchester visited John Bradish's address in Barnet to confirm I was staying at his address. John Bradish refused to talk to themor confirm I was staying at his address, although he clearly recognised both men, having met them on numerous occasions in the Prince of Wales pub in Highgate, which he often visited with his wife Gillian : indeed, this was how Gillian Bradish was able to state in evidence a couple of months later in the 'assault charge' unsuccessfully brought by Mr Manchester, that she recognised his voice from that pub. Mr Bradish was cleared in this, but Mr Manchester was bound over to keep the peace on the sum of £200 and warned in particular, that he should not make threatening phone calls to Mrs Bradish again - he didn't! David Farrant, President, British Psychic and Occult Society.
• anthonyhogg December 12, 2011
  David, Was Tony Hill a member of BOS?
• A Facebook user December 12, 2011
  Thank you for your insightful review of the Comic Book, Jason. I wouldn't say that I battle the Bonky One across space but you've got the part right about "time", he does put an awful lot of time into his internet forum postings! "Gone evil" is probably not the right phrase to describe his personality, "gone bonkers" is more accurate. As to your Mother's question about why women "fancy" me, I am completely unable to answer it myself. Suffice to say this particular phenomenon has caused me trouble in the past, but I will go on record as saying the current situation is quite stable and satisfying. I could go into more detail but perhaps that is better saved until you grow up. For the moment, David Farrant.
• Neighbours_Son December 12, 2011
  I just got two comic books from him for free! What's so wrong about that? I should think the other bloke cheap if he charges his friends for swag.
• Timelord December 12, 2011
  Alex, have you ever received any 'freebies' from David? Pamphlets, videos, DVDs etc? And as a point of clarity, I own 2 books by Bishop Manchester, both of which I paid for.
• A Facebook user December 12, 2011
  Time_traveller commented: "apart from contacting the buffoon John Pope ...." and here, in a nutshell is why I prefer David. This kind of arrogant, snide put-down alienates people. It's just so unwelcoming.
• anthonyhogg December 12, 2011
  Trav, re your alleged contact of Manchester, again, he lets *no one* speak on his behalf, and you're doing that with the claim on usernames. And yes, it's rather unfortunate that another faker has joined the cavalcade, this time hijacking Barbara's name. Pretty low. As to your 'problem' with who I contact, I've told you. 'Instead of offering the advice and wisdom of Bishop Seán Manchester to others, why doesn't he take that advice himself', because I don't believe they should be ignored, nor am I a Manchester supporter, unlike yourself. I find it amusing that people who go out of their way to defend him, blatantly ignore his 'word' on the matter. 'The fact that he doesn't reveals just how much he likes to embark on these fruitless waste of time exchanges that go nowehere', it's actually because I prefer avoiding assertions where no explicit proof is present. 'I have revealed some things and, believe me, could reveal a great deal more, but, as I say, the thread has now descended to kindergarten level and really isn't worth the effort', what you've done is parrot material from the VRS & co. and made vague allusions to your association to this thing. 'Anthony Hogg claims to be a Christian, but he is not a Christian at all recognisable in the scriptures, eg "Those who are not with Me, are against Me" ... "You cannot serve two masters" etc.' Judge not, lest ye be judged, Trav! Presuming you're a Christian, yourself. As to those references - to Jesus, no less - exactly what kind of comparison are you making here? I hope you're not alluding to Manchester, because the Good Book also warns of wolves in sheeps' clothing... 'He is someone who will always insist on having the last word and will keep on returning to forums and blogs such as this like a dog returns to its vomit.' Then why are you still here?
• A Facebook user December 12, 2011
  Mr Time Travellor I see you are a fan of Mortimer J. Adler as I am also. I have read many of his books as you have it seem, but did you know much of his writing is also on the internet to read or to quote in philosphy debate?
• Time_Traveller December 12, 2011
  I have asked Bishop Manchester today about usernames and his response is that in the past his has only been "Apostle of Jesus Christ" or a variation on that, and that he invariably used it on his own sites where he was exclusively posting material; so there would be no confusion as to who the username belonged to. Yet another fake identity has joined the bunch of impostors already present. This time it is somebody impersonating Barbara Green. This thread has now degraded to a level where meaningful contributions are submerged in a plethora of piffle and asininity. Hogg puts in his predicatble two penneth once again with: "At the end of the day, it's one - or more - person's word against another, where verifiable evidence is not present." How can it be otherwise on a blog? My problem is that, apart from contacting the buffoon John Pope, whom exactly has Hogg (or anyone else) actually contacted for "verification"? The names of the people who colluded in Farrant's ghost hoax are known. The name of the editor of the Hampstead & Highgate Express who will vouch who was really the President of the British Occult Society is known. The other names, including John Bradish, are all known. How many has Hogg spoken to apart from a raving lunatic who sees dead birds (yes, it was dead) on top of a judge's head whilst standing trial at the Old Bailey? A man, moreover, who claims to be the true successor to Aleister Crowley and a descendant of both Jack the Ripper and, wait for it, Count Dracula (a fictional character)!!! I think Hogg actually enjoys these circular arguments that go absolutely nowhere. Instead of offering the advice and wisdom of Bishop Seán Manchester to others, why doesn't he take that advice himself? The fact that he doesn't reveals just how much he likes to embark on these fruitless waste of time exchanges that go nowehere. I have revealed some things and, believe me, could reveal a great deal more, but, as I say, the thread has now descended to kindergarten level and really isn't worth the effort. If the only truth we can know is descriptive truth — then there is no purpose in all this. Propositions and claims cannot conform to reality, and we have the mistake of dismissing all ethical or value judgments as non-cognitive. These are personal opinions and subjective prejudices, not objective knowledge. We must formulate at least one self-evident prescriptive truth, so that, with it as a premise, we can reason to the truth of other prescriptives. Anthony Hogg claims to be a Christian, but he is not a Christian at all recognisable in the scriptures, eg "Those who are not with Me, are against Me" ... "You cannot serve two masters" etc. He is someone who will always insist on having the last word and will keep on returning to forums and blogs such as this like a dog returns to its vomit. Then there are the others who only seek to deceive whilst pretending to be people they are not whilst posting retarded rhetoric. Who wants to engage with such nincompoops? Certainly not me.
• A Facebook user December 12, 2011
  Can whoever is posting as Barbara Green please stop. Barbara no longer wants her name associated with this crap and does not find it remotely funny.
• anthonyhogg December 12, 2011
  Regarding the Bradish stuff - which Dave's obviously been watching from the sidelines - here's what he had to say about it. All the more interesting, in light of the claims that Bradish has since 'seen the light'. http://davidfarrant.org/TheHumanTouch/?p=1397
• BarbaraGreen December 12, 2011
  This is all very dickipoggy and you should all be talking about somthing much more intersting such as the shrieking vampire at Robin Hood's Grave at Kirklees which Sean went there to find one nigt, and which pushed one of his friends into a bramle bush as they were all running away after they found the shrieking vampire. I am praying for you all every night just as Catherine says she is ding. Tata, Barbara
• anthonyhogg December 12, 2011
  Timey, 'I withdraw my remarks about 'Lord and Master', Good sport. Trav, let's take a closer look at what Manchester actually said: 'Not so as to appear anonymous. My identity would always be clear even if I employ a title which does not include my name in it. One username, for example, is "Apostle of Jesus Christ."' Note: 'one of'. As to being 'always clear', that's open to interpretation, especially as he didn't identify what those other usernames were. Keep in mind what I actually asked him, too: 'Do you use any other usernames online? If so, what are they?' In terms of 'no desire to disguise himself', that's rendered moot by the multiple - and unidentified, except for one - usernames, in the first place. 'The problem with Paul Harris and Anthony Hogg is that not only were they not there - how could they be given how young they both are? - but neither have spoken to anyobody who actually was there.' One doesn't have to *be there* to necessarily *know* something happened or not. Otherwise, history would be a redundant subject. Indeed, sometimes 'being there' isn't always enough, as attested by conflicting statements, flawed memories, etc. In terms of 'not speaking to people who were there', false. I've 'spoken' to Manny, I've spoken to Dave, etc. At the end of the day, it's one - or more - person's word against another, where verifiable evidence is not present. In terms of criticising ones who 'weren't there, your 'clues' for your *own* involvement is hollow hearsay, especially as a lot of your 'intimate knowledge' is derived from Manchesterian sources, which anyone could google and copy and paste to their own discretion.
• A Facebook user December 12, 2011
  Mr Time Travellor I believe what you say that Mr John is totally serial about his magical bird. This is because Mr David told me about one time when you and Mr John were hang out at his flat when Mr John tell you about his naughty imp he put in box for matches, so I know you speak the truth when you tell of Mr John's magical powers being so strong.
• Time_Traveller December 12, 2011
  Paul Harris (posting as "Alex Berger"): "I can't prove anything about the Bradish case because I wasn't there, but I still find David's version to be vastly more credible. You seem to be getting reams of detailed information from somewhere about every aspect of all this so perhaps you are just a hollow mouthpiece." The problem with Paul Harris and Anthony Hogg is that not only were they not there - how could they be given how young they both are? - but neither have spoken to anyobody who actually was there. There are innumerable people who patronised the Prince of Wales pub circa four decades ago who heard Farrant boasting about his deed on the night of the court case in 1970. There are as many people who witnessed Farrant putting up anti-Bradish stickers in Highgate's pubs in 1969. Then there is Farrant himself who had motive and has privately admitted to various people that he made the black magic telephone threats, one of them being Seán Manchester not long after Farrant was released from Blunderstone Prison. Then there is Farrant's track record for threatening people with black magic. These threats were frequently recorded in local and national newspapers, and, as we all know, resulted in him receiving a two years jait term. Here is a clue as to how I have so much "insider information," I am contemporaneous to events and have spoken to many first-hand witnesses who heard and saw Farrant do the things about which I speak.
• Time_Traveller December 12, 2011
  Hogg: "Manchester's tendency to use multiple usernames." Prove it ( a term we frequently see posted from Hogg). The fact is that when Hogg asked Seán Manchester directly whether he used any nom de plumes, the bishop replied that he has used "Apostle of Christ" and that if he did use any others they would not be anonymous, ie he would be instantly recognised by the username because he has no desire to disguise himself. As far as I know, "Apostle of Christ" is the only username that Bishop Seán Manchester has ever used.
• Time_Traveller December 12, 2011
  The sock puppets posting on here as "Smoothie_John" and "Tony Sheridan" are also totally fake identities and probably issue from the same computer as "Trish Jing Jai," ie Farrant's computer. These are all people created by David Farrant. "Tony Sheridan" and "Trish Jing Jai" declare themselves to be in a "relationship" on Facebook. Well, that's novel. The problem is their progeny will all look like David Farrant clones because he is the one with his hand in both their gloves. Once again, "Tony Sheridan" only has friends who are part of Farrant's anti-Seán Manchester campaign. No family. Nobody else. And just take a look at the sign on the board in the background of "Smoothie_John's" membership icon. It says "Death to Manchester," which sort of gives the game away. "Smoothie_John" is, of course, David Farrant, as are all the others.
• Time_Traveller December 12, 2011
  Look, "Trish Jing Jai" also known as David Farrant, do yourself a favour and return to reading and distributing comics about "Cousin Hoggy" and "Bonkers." Nobody is fooled. The humour from a 66-year-old man, as always, is infantile.
• A Facebook user December 12, 2011
  Trish luv, if Time Traveller makes you laugh...well this would mark the first time he's done something good for someone from another country!
• A Facebook user December 12, 2011
  Mr Time Travellor, you are so funny saying to me I am barking. So very funny. I know you only say to tease me. I Think Mr William might be right when he say you are the bigger crackpot of all. So for you to say I am barking gives me the best day of laughing since I am come to you country! Have the best day, Trish :-)
• Time_Traveller December 12, 2011
  For the person posting as "Trish Jing Jai": I don't have a "fan site" for anyone. You're barking up the wrong tree. In fact, you're just plain barking! Keep scratching.
• Time_Traveller December 12, 2011
  David Farrant claims he appointed "Trish Jing Jai" as the "secretary" of his non-existant "British Psychic and Occult Society." So why would the same "Trish Jing Jai" need to ask Anthony Hogg about John Pope and birds landing on heads? Farrant was actually present in the criminal court at the time, and is a long time friend and collaborator of Pope. Surely, if "Trish Jing Jai" existed in "her" own right as Farrant's "secretary" "she" would have absolutely no need to ask any of these questions of Hogg or of anyone else when Farrant already has the answers.
• Neighbours_Son December 12, 2011
  David, I got the comic book in the post today. It is cool and I liked the part with you and Bonkers on the cliff top and the space aliens time travel ray. My mum of course wanting to know what it was all about, so I explained to her the story of Bishop Bonkers and yourself discovery of the Highgate vampire in 1970 when you were both starting out in witchcraft and how he has gone evil and you battle each other across time and space. She was curious about Hoggy and how he could be a cousin to a human but "who is this David Farrant and why do all the women fancy him?" is what she really wanted to know!!! Reckon I don't know how to answer that one, so I'll leave it to you. : ) Thank you. Jason. Assoc. Cabal member.
• anthonyhogg December 12, 2011
  Trav, ok, in terms of the other business spoken, it sounded like he was taking the piss. I haven't heard the CD, but nor do I have any interest in buying it from that site, especially as I know what they like to do with personal details. Perhaps they could post it on YouTube or somethin'. I don't think permission would be a problem, seeing as they're openly selling it.
• A Facebook user December 12, 2011
  Mr Time Travellor, I am confusced. Why you say I am not really alive when you have also put my picture on your fan site you run for Mr Farrant with all pictures of his friends? You are make me scratch my head today Mr Time Travellor. Have the best day! Trish :-)
• anthonyhogg December 12, 2011
  As to the WilliamLaw sockpuppets, et. al., it's clear they're parodying VRS sockpuppets - and Manchester's tendency to use multiple usernames. Not that I approve of taking on the identities of the dead (or the living, in Br. Keith's case) - much like, say, 'Arminius' and 'Montague Summers'.
• Time_Traveller December 12, 2011
  Hogg (to "Trish Jing Jai"): "As to what Pope said, he was, how you say, 'taking the piss' with such comments. At least, I hope so." Wrong. Massively so! Pope was absolutely genuine and, in fact, told the criminal court at the Old Bailey that he saw a bird land on the judge as he stood with Farrant in the dock. Pope confirms this in a recorded interview he later gave which excerpt can be heard on the CD "The Black Witch Project" where Pope is not backward in coming forward with all manner of revelations that are an embarrassment for David Farrant, eg "David invited these reporters when we were trying to raise a demon at the house" and "David performed a ritual in a manner I am not familiar with" etc. Link: http://www.gothicpress.freeserve.co.uk/Witch.htm
• anthonyhogg December 12, 2011
  Trav, your comments on 'sock puppets' is highly ironic. As to Trish she *could* be a sockpuppet, but at least we've a name to the face. In your case, you refuse to even disclose your association to the case.
• anthonyhogg December 12, 2011
  And Timelord, Dave is quite obviously not Jamie's 'god' because he refutes what Manchester said. Apart from that dartboard business, he's raising some valid points, which deserve answers.
• Time_Traveller December 12, 2011
  When are other members going to wise up to the fact that we now have a number of fake identities posting on this thread, all emanating from the same source? Surely nobody takes "Trish Jing Jai" seriously? It is not a genuine person. This is a sock puppet, as is "William Law," and "Neighbours_Son" and "Br_Keith." William Law, the cemetery employee, is long since deceased, and "Br_Keith" is someone impersonating Seán Manchester's friend Keith Maclean. Words fail me regarding "Trish Jing Jai." How can anyone be taken in by such a transparent joke as this? The Facebook page which links to this sock puppet exclusively lists those who belong Farrant's clique. It is as if this person has no family, friends or life outside the Farrant fold, which, when you think about it, is absolutely correct because it is one them posting as "Trish Jing Jai." Now you will get an indignant post back from this sock puppet, but read between the lines. Better still, read the lines themselves! The "humour" is pure Farrant ... "Can you tell me more about Mr John and his time when a magic bird flew on his judge's head?" Come on, who has really been fooled by any of this?
• anthonyhogg December 12, 2011
  Trish, hi. I can see why you were busy, what with posting up links to a certain Christmas video and being BPOS's newest lackey. So, take your time in answering. ;) As to what Pope said, he was, how you say, 'taking the piss' with such comments. At least, I hope so. But if you want more clarity on the issue, you could try contacting him. Trav, despite such (suspect) explanations for Manchester's prior involvement in occultism, he was certainly a practitioner, as his necromantic ritual attests.
• anthonyhogg December 12, 2011
  Trav, I'm defending fairness and balance. As I've said before, occasionally I'll agree with what Sean says, occasionally I'll agree with what David says. Turning this into a game of 'If you believe them on something, then you're ONE OF THEM!' is pathetic. Re: criticising who I don't personally know with 'What follows are facts, not opinions. How do I know? Because I've heard it from a stable of horses' mouths first-hand.' So you say. Yet who *are* you but an anonymous plagiarist batting for Team Sean? You've not disclosed your affiliations, nothing. Saying that stuff is not evidence in itself, but hearsay, no matter how hysterical you wanna be about it. It's one word against the other. When there's conflict, folk'll usually go for the most plausible by default. Think Occam's Razor.
• Time_Traveller December 12, 2011
  How many times does the same question have to be answered? I quote Dennis Crawford when the question - "What is the story behind the photograph that supposedly depicts Bishop Manchester doing an occult ritual?" - was put to him some years ago by Vulpes5. Dennis Crawford's answered: "The dramatic reconstruction picture of an occult ritual was used as bait in the '70s (whilst covert operations were in progress) to gain the confidence of diabolists who needed a lot of convincing before they would open up. Jean-Paul Bourre (a notorious French Satanist) took the bait, as did a number of others, and published the picture. This led to a period of undercover work which was to prove invaluable to those wanting evidence about the occult underworld. Bishop Manchester ceased all such operations in the wake of publishing From Satan To Christ. " http://www.holygrail-church.fsnet.co.uk/TheThorneConspiracy.htm
• A Facebook user December 12, 2011
  Greetings Mr Anthony and thankyou for your email. I have as always been so busy with my work but I will send reply to you soon. I am very much of interest in your talk with Mr John Pope. But I cannot now find on page as so many posting here. Can you tell me more about Mr John and his time when a magic bird flew on his judge's head? Is this story truhful, I am asking. I am try to understand for understand more of Western occultism but is very hard for me to interpretate what Mr John is speaking about. Have the best day, Trish :-) ;-) :-)
• A Facebook user December 12, 2011
  I'm not debating anything , I posted a link to a picture of Sean conducting an occult ceremony and simply asked what he was hoping to achieve. I must say he looked very fetching in his robes...occult symbols really suit him I feel :-)
• Time_Traveller December 12, 2011
  His "god" is the father of lies.
• Timelord December 12, 2011
  You are not worth debating anything with Jamie, your God is your father.
• A Facebook user December 12, 2011
  Seems like Timelords been told not to talk to me, ooh :-) Guess some subjects must be a tad sensitive for Seans delicate ears eh :-))
• Time_Traveller December 12, 2011
  Paul Harris (posting as "Alex Berger"): "How you can side with a man who believes that he was chased by a giant vampire spider while standing in a circle of burning sulfphur wearing specially prepared robes is beyond me, but I respect your right to do so." How do you, Paul Harris, side with a man who claims to have lain in a pentagram whilst having intercourse with Martine de Sacy in a mausoleum at Highgate Cemetery, visualizing a satanic force so that it was able to take possession of their bodies? This boast contributed to him receiving a two years prison sentence. How do you side with a man who claims to have raised a demon with a naked John Pope in a derelict house? This led to both Pope and Farrant being charged with arson. They were acquitted because tin foil had been used to stop the fire spreading. How do you side with a man who colluded with a journalist (who just happened to be related to Farrant's co-defendant) to orchestrate his arrest in a Barnet churchyard with Victoria Jervis for the sole purpose of self-publicity in newspapers? This resulted in Farrant and Jervis being found guilty of indecency and fined. How do you side with a man who has sent threatening black magic effigies to a doctor's wife, an RSPCA inspector and various others, including police witnesses in John Pope's sexual assault case? Farrant sending the witnesses black magic death threats landed him with a further two years prison sentence. How do you side with a man who appointed a Satanist and convicted sex offender to be the head of the junior department of his so-called "Highgate Vampire Society"? We could go on all day like this, but it begs the question does it not, how do you side with him?
• A Facebook user December 11, 2011
  What was Sean trying to achieve when he held his occult ceremonies Timelord?
• Timelord December 11, 2011
  Alex, how can you side with a man who claimed to have summoned the dead entity known as Pan? See, works both ways. And I have not sworn obedience to anyone, either. I withdraw my remarks about 'Lord and Master',
• A Facebook user December 11, 2011
  For Time_Traveller: I can't prove anything about the Bradish case because I wasn't there, but I still find David's version to be vastly more credible. You seem to be getting reams of detailed information from somewhere about every aspect of all this so perhaps you are just a hollow mouthpiece.
• A Facebook user December 11, 2011
  For Timelord: David is not my "Lord and Master", just someone who I've talked with on the internet over the years concerning the Highgate case and Robin Hood case. I like him, I wish him well, but I haven't sworn an oath of obedience to him! How you can side with a man who believes that he was chased by a giant vampire spider while standing in a circle of burning sulfphur wearing specially prepared robes is beyond me, but I respect your right to do so.
• A Facebook user December 11, 2011
  The Comic is not dependent on membership of the Society, Jason; that is publicly available to everyone: indeed, it is Listed on Amazon. I asked for a Comic to be posted to you for this reason, and you should get it early this week. I would not show a copy to Mr. Law though, as he may be unable to appreciate the funny side of it. Please let me know once it has arrived safely. For now, David Farrant
• Neighbours_Son December 11, 2011
  David I was told that associate cabal member status does not include the comic. If your organisation has posted it I am most greatful for the favour. Thank you. Jason.
• A Facebook user December 11, 2011
  Sean's answered his own question here .... " Yet it was to Sean Manchester he wrote from his jail cell, not his to any of his mythical members, for support".......if it actually happened (remember it is Sean claiming it after all) then it's quite obvious that David wrote to Sean in his (Seans) capacity as a member of the B.O.S. It's a shame 'Time Traveller' has stated on here that he's not going to talk to me any more. It means he can't answer me without being a liar (again). ho ho!
• Time_Traveller December 11, 2011
  David Farrant had it in for Seán Manchester after the latter had declined (following his receipt of prison correspondence) to become embroiled in Farrant's compulsion to manufacture publicity for himself. Seán Manchester's warning against him staging a lone vampire hunt (on Thames Television and in the Hampstead & Highgate Express, 13 March 1970) could not have helped either. Farrant went ahead nonetheless in August 1970 which is where all his troubles began. Seán Manchester, equally, could not have been pleased at being framed by Farrant who set both him and John Bradish up in the autumn of 1970 with the outcome we all know about. Mary Farrant had complained to her husband that Bradish had made unwelcome advances to her at Farrant's Archway Road flat in the preceding decade. Farrant told a number of people about this, ie how he would get even with Bradish whom he absolutely despised. Tony Hill and his wife were among those who heard Farrant say he had it in for Bradish, as were many of Farrant's drinking acquaintances in the Prince of Wales, Highgate, where he affixed stickers bearing his poorly executed cartoons under his "Bradish Defamation League" banner (not realising the irony of that title). These actions were witnessed. And the fact that he was angered by the unwanted attention Bradish had shown his wife will be confirmed by her and many others who frequented Highgate pubs at that time. These are the true and only origins of the so-called "feud" which has persisted for over forty years.
• Time_Traveller December 11, 2011
  David Farrant claims these days to have founded the BOS in 1967 at a time when he was still on the Continent with his wife-to-be. They returned to England to be married later that year. She stated under oath seven years later that she knew nothing about any occult society where her husband was concerned and that his nocturnal visits to Highgate Cemetery were just for a bit of fun after the pubs had closed. She should know. She was with him on those cemetery jaunts! This matches what everybody else contemporaneous to the situation has said. Not one person from that period can be found to say anything any different. Farrant claimed retrospectively that he ran a society which had a considerable membership at the time of his arrest in August 1970. Yet it was to Seán Manchester he wrote from his jail cell, not his to any of his mythical members, for support. And it was the completely uninvolved John Bradish (who eschewed all things paranormal and occult) who paid his bail. Where was the so-called membership of Farrant's alleged occult society? Why did none of those people stump up his bail money? If they had existed, surely one of them would have offered? This leaves two possibilities. The last thing Farrant wanted was to have someone bail him out of jail while he was receiving such widespread press coverage. Up to that point, he had only had incidental mention in low circulation local newspapers. After his arrest, he was receiving global attention, which is exactly what he wanted and why he orchestrated his own arrest in the first place. The second possibility, perish the thought, is that David Farrant had no "members" to call upon to pay his bail because his society was imaginary, just like the "ghost" he had hoaxed along with Hill in early 1970.
• Time_Traveller December 11, 2011
  No wonder Farrant isn't posting at the moment with Hoggy defending him so vigorously with statements such as: "What hysterical nonsense! I see it as common sense, namely, why would David harass a woman into *revoking bail from himself*?" If only Hogg was not so close to the "feud" while so far from the facts! If only he had access to those who knew Farrant and what was going on forty years ago! It would make such a difference. What follows are facts, not opinions. How do I know? Because I've heard it from a stable of horses' mouths first-hand. When Farrant was arrested at Highgate Cemetery on the night of 17 August 1970 it was not by accident. He had orchestrated his own arrest. Someone colluding with him (I know who that person is) called the police at a pre-arranged time from a public telephone box to ensure Farrant would be arrested and held on remand. Farrant pleaded guilty to ensure he would be held, charged and remanded. The press were already growing tired of Farrant by the summer of 1970, and he knew that if he was arrested and held by the police it would guarantee massive press coverage. He was right. His fake midnight vampire hunt in Highgate Cemetery, arrest and ensuing court case was covered by all the national press in the UK and many foreign newspapers via Reuters. Once he had achieved all this publicity he changed his plea to one of not guilty in the belief he would soon be released on his own recognisance. Bail was set and because he had nothing to do with the British Occult Society he wrote to Seán Manchester to ask for his and his society's support. Meanwhile, John Bradish unexpectedly turned up at Brixton Prison and paid Farrant's bail without the latter's approval. Bradish wanted Farrant to stop getting involved in the occult and with vampires, as had been his habit in the preceding months. Farrant agreed (what else could he say in the circumstances - he was caught between a rock and a hard place!) and moved in with the Bradishes. He was not especially pleased with what had happened because his publicity dried up as quickly as it had begin. There nevertheless existed an opportunity to set up John Bradish and Seán Manchester by making the threatening black magic telephone calls. It worked and Bradish occasioned an assault for which he received a criminal conviction. Gillian Bradish did a reasonable job of framing Seán Manchester whom she and her husband had never met for the calls because that is what Farrant had convinced them both had happened. After the case, however, the Bradishes discovered the truth from plenty of people who knew it. Within no time, Farrant ceased to be a lodger at the Bradish household and was suddenly living in a bedsit above a chemist shop back in Archway Road (almost opposite Hill's flat). Next came Farrant's midnight arrest at Monken Hadley Churchyard in Barnet on Hallowe'en 1972. The prosecution had evidence that Farrant, again, had orchestrated his own arrest to ensure he received massive newspaper coverage. There was even a newspaper photographer at hand to take pictures of his arrest. The journalist covering his publicity stunt was related to the co-defendant in the court case that followed. Victoria Jervis appears to have been the only person who didn't have a clue about what was going on. "Mr P J Bucknell, prosecuting, said Mr Farrant had painted circles on the ground, lit with candles, and had told reporters and possibly the police of what he was doing. 'This appears to be a sordid attempt to obtain publicity,' he said." (Hampstead & Highgate Express, 24 November 1972)
• anthonyhogg December 10, 2011
  Timey, re: 'Why is it risible, Alex?', I find it risible, too, and Dave isn't my 'Lord and Master', nor does it have anything to do with Trav's comment, 'Well, wouldn't you see it any other way given the way you've lumped yourself in with Farrant's clique lock, stock and barrel'. What hysterical nonsense! I see it as common sense, namely, why would David harass a woman into *revoking bail from himself*? Which is the more likely possibility here? Also, keep the court's verdict in mind. Don't be too hard on Alex, Timey, as he's one of the more reasonable people here. As you may've noticed, he's also avoided an abusive tone in his posts. In terms of Manchester, his story is definitely not consistent, as comparing the '85 and '91 editions of 'The Highgate vampire' will reveal. Re: FoBSM, you said, 'I do read the blogs and see a vigorous defence of the lies and bile put out by other parties. It's fairly obvious to me that there is a cabal out there determined to destroy Bishop Manchester and it is up to others to balance these attacks', yet you also said, 'I think it's very unfortunate the way you have been dragged in and lumped with the Farrant brigade'. I'm amazed you can excuse the actions of these people and make it out to be a one-sided thing, justifiable as 'defence'. No one is obligated to defend Manchester. Indeed, Manchester, himself, advises, 'So my advice to those who feel enraged by his behaviour and personally want to confront him is to remember he is still one of God's creatures and to pray for him. Pray for his state of mind and endangered soul. If you are unable to do that, just ignore him.' It's wise advice, considering how malignant his 'defenders' become. Try and tell me that that they're 'better' than what David & co. does. Far from it.
• Smoothie_John December 10, 2011
  My attention has been drawn to this blog and all the apparent misinformation being circulated about John Bradish and his connection with David Farrant. For the record, I am a personal friend of John's, and can say he has not been taken in by claims made by the 'Vampire Research Society' that David Farrant made the threatening black magic phone calls to his wife Gillian in 1970. As for the Bradish Defamation League, I feel this has been grossly exaggerated. When John was staying with David Farrant and his wife Mary they managed to secure a photograph of him enjoying a bath. This was in response to an occasion just before when Mary was on holiday and John managed to deposit a wayfaring girl in David's bed who he discovered upon receiving a mysterious message informing him that he had an intruder in his flat. John had apparently done this for a joke, telling this person that he really owned the flat. David returned to find her naked with her clothes strewn over the floor and after confronting her received a torrent of abuse before making her breakfast. John had told her that it was really his flat, and the girl thought that David was trespassing! It was all done for a joke, obviously. But to return the favour I understand from John that David distributed the photographs of him in the bath around the Highgate community. These were not cartoons, but real photographs. So I do not know from where Time_Traveller gets this wrong information from, when David and John have never been enemies, and there was no hate campaign as he (Time_Traveller) is now suggesting.
• Timelord December 10, 2011
  Alex, I do read the blogs and see a vigorous defence of the lies and bile put out by other parties. It's fairly obvious to me that there is a cabal out there determined to destroy Bishop Manchester and it is up to others to balance these attacks. And no Alex, I am not religious, but I am a Human Being. I do not hate David Farrant. I pity him. He has had numerous opportunities to make peace yet runs away with a ya boo attitude like a 7 year old out playing.
• Timelord December 10, 2011
  Why is it risible, Alex? Given that your Lord and Master David Farrant constantly changes his story and admits to the existence of a vampire, then says it doesn't exist, then says it still exists etc etc Bishop Manchester's story has always seemed to be consistent over the last 40 years, leaving one to consider the reason is that David Farrant is a fraud over this whole affair.
• A Facebook user December 10, 2011
  For "Time_Traveller" your version of the Bradish incident is utterly risible.
• A Facebook user December 10, 2011
  For Timelord: "however what I see is one party (BSM's) being maligned, abused and generally having bile said against them for decades " That's because you are only looking one way. Try looking at the FoBSM blog pages for vile abuse posted about David and his friends. For example: http://friendsofbishopseanmanchester.blogspot.com/2010/10/barbara-green.html or http://friendsofbishopseanmanchester.blogspot.com/2010/10/kev-demant.html as one respected commentator once remarked: "With friends like that, +Manchester doesn't need emenies".
• anthonyhogg December 10, 2011
  Trav, 'I doubt anyone called up and demanded that bail was revoked'. The court saw otherwise. Considering that you also previously stated that *Dave* made the calls, that makes no sense. 'Farrant absolutely hated John Bradish and ran a hate campaign against him a year or two earlier under the title of the "Bradish Defamation League"...' etc. Prove it. 'This demonstrates that Farrant and Manchester were not friends, as earlier suggested, and that Farrant felt enormous hostility towards Manchester for reasons already explained', not necessarily. Following your logic, it could imply a falling out. It's interesting how Manchester and Farrant have weaved in and out of each others's lives - not to mention sharing acquaintances (Hill, for instance) - so it doesn't surprise me Baroness Kirk made the comments she did. Strangely, no retractions there. 'Regarding the BOS, every newspaper reference where Farrant is described in that connection was always with the prefix "self-styled" whereas when Seán Manchester was described as President of the British Occult Society it was never with that prefix or allusion', not true, as I know from my article stash. 'Rubbish. It is not an even playing field as implied by Hogg.' Considering the way FoBSM and the VRS act, I'd say it's probably worse. '"Manchester's lot" do not impersonate people known to Farrant, including Farrant himself', that's debateable. After all, I believe it was 'Anonymous' or yourself, who said that Dave would be rather shocked if he knew of their/your true identity...yet don't disclose it. 'Not only have members of Farrant's clique impersonated Seán Manchester and his wife on the internet, they also impersonate others who support Seán Manchester; most recently Arminius Vambery on Facebook and Blogspot, and Keith Maclean on this Atlas Obscura.' Ironic, considering Arminius, himself, has taken on the identity (including picture) of a long-dead Hungarian scholar, not to mention there being a 'Montague Summers' in the group, too. But yes, as I've pointed out before, it's hypocritical to complain of Manchester's various aliases, while assuming the identities of others, themselves. One even did it to me.
• anthonyhogg December 10, 2011
  Timey, as to the forum, it's not only 'hidden', but it's been locked, too. Probably a good thing. Now, as to what I meant about deflections and such, Trav's piped in to serve as the perfect example of what I was talking about with statements like this: 'Well, wouldn't you see it any other way given the way you've lumped yourself in with Farrant's clique lock, stock and barrel'. Ask yourself, Timey, is it not possible that Dave *didn't* actually make those calls, considering what they were *about* (i.e. revoking Dave's bail)? Think of it, why would he be discouraging others from keeping him *out* of prison? Instead of considering that a perfectly reasonable conclusion, Trav dismisses it wholesale, instead suggesting it's because of who I associate with! Such is the close-minded mentality which permeates this case.
• anthonyhogg December 10, 2011
  Timey, it's more than just being 'lumped' with the Dave brigade, it's the lengths to which they'll go to 'get' their critics. That young guy they think is me - isn't. Which means they'll stoop to roping innocents into this thing as a way of pursuing their vendetta...all the while complaining of 'mistreatment', etc. It's hypocritical, to say the least. I disagree that only Manchester's side is being maligned, because Manchester's side - and Manchester, himself, for that matter - have shown their propensity for dodgy doings. It's a 'feud' for a reason, i.e. not one-sided, no matter how they try and skirt around it. I'm all for a 'right of reply', but what's been happening over the years isn't merely a rights of reply, but *campaigns* against each other, often under the pretext of stating 'facts'. The abuse generally overturns that, however and sometimes, people get caught in the crossfire. While Dave often deflects criticism onto Manny, well, as you've seen here, Manchester's supporters also do the same to him. It's important to be fair and balanced with this stuff - something I try and be - which is why I ask questions and hear both sides out (and everyone in between). Sure, I tend to disagree with a lot being said, but I give reasons for doing so, and have the same expectations, re: evidence for 'facts', from both sides. This is most definitely not a black and white issue, probably serving as a testament to the cult of personality David and Sean cultivate - intentionally or otherwise - where they're seen as 'doing no wrong', or, at the very least, given a reprieval from doing so because 'they do it, too!' They're not Teflon; that should be acknowledged, rather than overlooked. Whatever I hold 'em to account for, I expect of myself, too.
• Time_Traveller December 10, 2011
  Hogg (to Timelord): "I wish you'd show more balance in your comments, as the criticisms applied to Dave and co, can equally be applied to Manchester's lot." Rubbish. It is not an even playing field as implied by Hogg. "Manchester's lot" do not send malicious mail to Farrant's family, friends and girlfriend (when he has one). "Manchester's lot" do not impersonate people known to Farrant, including Farrant himself. Not only have members of Farrant's clique impersonated Seán Manchester and his wife on the internet, they also impersonate others who support Seán Manchester; most recently Arminius Vambery on Facebook and Blogspot, and Keith Maclean on this Atlas Obscura. The person who is registered as "Br_Keith" and has posted below is an impostor who belongs to Farrant's lot. The photograph of "Br_Keith" has been stolen by the impersonator from Seán Manchester's portraiture blog where the original picture can be found at this link: http://seanmanchester.blogspot.com/2009/02/keith_10.html
• A Facebook user December 10, 2011
  Did you receive your comic yet Jason. If not, look out for it as my secretary tells me she has posted one. David Farrant
• Time_Traveller December 10, 2011
  Hogg: "Re: the Bradish incident, I lean towards Gareth's incredulity, i.e., why would David call up Bradish's wife, telling her to revoke bail *for himself*? That's insane." Well, wouldn't you see it any other way given the way you've lumped yourself in with Farrant's clique lock, stock and barrel. I doubt anyone called up and demanded that bail was revoked. That is something Farrant cooked up and the Bradishes agreed to go along with up to the time of learning the true facts. Farrant absolutely hated John Bradish and ran a hate campaign against him a year or two earlier under the title of the "Bradish Defamation League" owing to Bradish allegedly (according to Farrant) making unwanted advances on Mary Farrant when they were alone together at the Archway Road flat before Farrant was evicted from it. Farrant obviously denied to Bradish that he was the one behind the hate campaign and nobody was that bothered because Bradish was generally disliked in Highgate, but everyone else knew it was Farrant because he boasted about it and they saw him putting up stickers. The campaign comprised Farrant going around pubs and leaving stickers and small posters defaming John Bradish. These invariably included childish cartoons drawn by Farrant. This was before the days when he had others doing his drawings for him. When Bradish offered to bail Farrant and allowed him to become a lodger in September 1970, Farrant couldn't believe his luck. He seized the opportunity to reek his revenge against both John Bradish and Seán Manchester by orchestrating the black magic telephone threats where he managed to temporarily convince the Bradishes it was Seán Manchester. This demonstrates that Farrant and Manchester were not friends, as earlier suggested, and that Farrant felt enormous hostility towards Manchester for reasons already explained. Regarding the BOS, every newspaper reference where Farrant is described in that connection was always with the prefix "self-styled" whereas when Seán Manchester was described as President of the British Occult Society it was never with that prefix or allusion. When Farrant wrote to Seán Manchester from prison he wrote to Hill's address (Farrant never returned to Hill's address after his imprisonment in 1970) because Seán Manchester was still on friendly terms with Elizabeth Hill who forwarded the mail to him. Obviously Farrant was uncertain of the full address for the British Occult Society's offices in Upper Holloway and used Hill's address instead, but even that he managed to get wrong, calling "Priestwood Mansions" "Priest Mansions."
• Timelord December 10, 2011
  Yeah sounds like that Moderator from a certain Forum. Is the Highgate forum still hidden from view on there?
• Timelord December 10, 2011
  Anthony, I think it's very unfortunate the way you have been dragged in and lumped with the Farrant brigade, however what I see is one party (BSM's) being maligned, abused and generally having bile said against them for decades defending themselves. Farrant never defends himself, only deflects criticism and blames BSM.
• anthonyhogg December 10, 2011
  Real life, Jason? Talking pigs aren't real, mate, except in 'Babe' and certain Looney Toon shorts.
• anthonyhogg December 10, 2011
  Timey, 'Hmmm, yes I've heard that somewhere else before as well, Anthony', one of the SNW mods, I believe. 'Anthony, "meds" is a term used in the USA as opposed to being one used in the UK. Another one of Farrant's fearless keyboard warriors coming to his aid? Maybe they are getting free pamphlets of hate for their trouble,' we also say 'meds' in Oz, too. I bet it's used often in the UK, too. As to the 'keyboard warrior' thing, there's a great irony in the variety of aliases Manchester uses being criticised, yet no such criticism for Dave's mates. They know who they are. That said, Timey, I wish you'd show more balance in your comments, as the criticisms applied to Dave and co, can equally be applied to Manchester's lot. They, in turn, even echo each others' attacks. Speaking of which, the FoBSM blog entry which criticises their publication of a blog with a pig-like character with a name similar to my own...only to turn around and post a pic of a pig's head on al-Qaeda lovin' suicide bomber wannabe's body...has since removed the pic. They've replaced with...the 'unmasked' pic of a young man they *think* is me and one they've been distributing since last year, along with an erroneous address. Do you approve of such tactics?
• Neighbours_Son December 10, 2011
  Is Hoggy a solicitor in real life? Or is that just in the video and cartoon where he always gets killed off in the end of the story. Jason.
• anthonyhogg December 10, 2011
  Trav, re: the Bradish incident, I lean towards Gareth's incredulity, i.e., why would David call up Bradish's wife, telling her to revoke bail *for himself*? That's insane. As to the backgrounds you've given on Hill and co, considering you've not expressed any association to the VRS - or Hill, himself, for that matter, your 'insider' knowledge is something I take at face value. afraid I'm going to have to take your comments purely at face value. Understand that I'm also interested in hearing Dave's version of events, too, not just the VRS script. At the very least, there's contemporary documentation of David's association with BOS (whether that was accurate or not, is yet to be determined). Obviously, I find it highly suspicious that David didn't contradict Manchester's claims for that duration, under the flimsy pretext that the 'press didn't take him seriously'. It obviously did, if it 'allowed' him to be presented that way. Then again, they also represented David as its pres/founder, too. Indeed, there's no retraction from Manchester in that 1971 case. But they can't *both* be right, unless they founded it together. Re: the prison correspondence, why is Manchester's postal address the same as David's?
• Timelord December 10, 2011
  Anthony, "meds" is a term used in the USA as opposed to being one used in the UK. Another one of Farrant's fearless keyboard warriors coming to his aid? Maybe they are getting free pamphlets of hate for their trouble.
• Timelord December 10, 2011
  David Farrant an amateur? I really wouldn't give him credit to call him that! There are superb amateur photographers, actors etc out there, why give David the credit of amateur when he is an incompetent?
• Timelord December 10, 2011
  "Whiny little bugger" Hmmm, yes I've heard that somewhere else before as well, Anthony.
• Time_Traveller December 10, 2011
  Hogg (to Farrant): "Incidentally, you dodged answering whether or not Hill was a member of BOS. Was he?" I have already answered it and have reiterated that Farrant owed no connect whatsoever to the British Occult Society. In the BBC television report, transmitted 15 October 1970, the narrator Laurence Picethly actually states close to the film's conclusion "but Seán Manchester regards Farrant as an amateur etc." Earlier in the programme we saw Seán Manchester at the Upper Holloway offices of the British Occult Society reconstructing a medieval form of demonic expulsion. He also separately reconstructed his own exorcism that had taken place two months earlier at the mouth of the afflicted tomb. On Thames Television (March 1970) and BBC Television (October 1970), Seán Manchester was introduced as the President of the British Occult Society without a murmur of contradiction or complaint from David Farrant. Indeed, while Farrant was in Brixton Prison on remand in August 1970, he sent Seán Manchester correspondence asking for him and his British Occult Society to vouch for him. They did not and never would vouch for him. The rest is history. http://highgatevampire.blogspot.com/2009/08/prison-correspondence-from-lone-vampire.html
• Time_Traveller December 10, 2011
  Baroness Kirk: " It looks as if this started with people being friends, then they fell out and this is what became of it." Pure conjecture by a woman who did not know any of the parties personally and who did not have the historical context of the Bradish case et al, which is clear evidence Seán Manchester and David Farrant were most definitely not friends because, for Seán Manchester at least, the Bradish case was the beginning of the so-called "feud" between him and Farrant. For Farrant it was the refusal of the BOS and Seán Manchester to support his daft stunts to garner self-publicity for him in the media. Baroness Kirk was correct if she was aiming her remark solely at Hill and Farrant because they were ostensibly friends who had fallen out. Why did Hill and Farrant fall out? It was, according to Hill and one or two others, because when they discussed between themselves the ghost hoax in late 1969 it was agreed that after a few weeks it would be publicly exposed as a hoax. Hill wanted to stick to that plan, but Farrant got carried away with all the press attention and persisted with the hoax for the next four decades. This caused a rift between Hill and Farrant, but not a serious rift because Farrant was seen sitting in Hill's paper stall at the Nags Head Corner not too long afterwards. Hill, as he has since admitted, mischievously fed Farrant all manner of nonsense about Seán Manchester due to the fact that the schism between Hill and Manchester lasted years. Like the fool he is, Farrant absorbed and regurgitated Hill's nonsense and some of it later resurfaced in his malicious pamphlets. Hill has since apologised to Manchester for being responsible for some of this garbage. During the 1971 court case, however, Hill was represented by a solicitor and Seán Manchester very successfully defended himself. Whatever charges Farrant now says were brought separately against Hill and Manchester the fact is they were thrown out of court by Baroness Kirk before the cases really got underway, and both parties were completely cleared of Farrant's allegations.
• anthonyhogg December 9, 2011
  There's only one problem with your reply, David: it makes no sense. Especially as you appeared alongside him, too. Why on earth would anyone who'd founded an organization, stand by, and let an 'imposter' take credit for leading it? The idea of the press not taking his claim seriously, is also nonsensical, because as far as the press were considered, he was its legit president. Like I said, they even allowed retractions to be printed when you tried claiming leadership. I'm asking the 'same' questions, because you repeatedly dodge answering them - and on the odd occasions you do answer them, your responses are incredibly suss. You speak of 'facts', but you provide little to verify. You say I warp things, but I've shown how you do so, repeatedly (see your claim that the press covered his expulsion - which, they didn't). I'm aware of the property theft. I know the article. Problem is, you're only representing a small portion of that article. The article, if I'm not mistaken, said *your* property was stolen, Manchester's excuse being that he thought he had permission to take it. And don't start that 'not even present' thing, because you don't apply that to folk who believe your claims wholesale. Sadly, it's also the 'logic' Manchester and his kind use against me. As to the 'evidence', what you did - or Gareth, I should say, by mentioning that article - is 'prove' that Manchester was a member of the organisation and claim yourself as its founder. The press - and court, for that matter - were generally ambiguous as to who presided/founded it (or they would've refuted retractions), as they'd simply print either your or Manchester's claim to the title. Indeed, if you're going to use that article/case as proof, then you're undermining your claim that Manchester was expelled from the Society in July 1970. In terms of 'speculations', all you've done is copy what I said about yours, yet you have great difficulty clarifying what my 'erroneous speculations' are. Your statements reek of the 'untrue propaganda' comments you made before: a meaningless gaggle of words. Incidentally, you dodged answering whether or not Hill was a member of BOS. Was he?
• A Facebook user December 9, 2011
  "So, again, why did *you* allow him to claim credit? Let's not flip this back onto the press or Manchester. I am asking why you, specifically, did." [Anthony Hogg) For the third and last time, Anthony, it was because nobody took his claims seriously. You asked a question - I have answered it no less than three times. So the real question must be; why do you keep asking the same questions, if you cannot accept the answers you are given? This is basically YOUR problem, Anthony i.e to try and manipulate people into giving the answers YOU want regardless of the facts, not to mention the actual truth itself. In 1971, Society property was stolen from the Society by Manchester and Hill. Statements were given to the Highgate Police which I later affirmed under Oath in Court. These privileged statements (or the essentials of them) were reported by the Press after the evidence had been examined in Court. The basic evidence examined was about the theft of the Society's property, which had previously been examined by the police who brought the charges. I would have thought they would have known better than you, Anthony, who was not even present. All you do, Anthony, is speculate about your own erroneous assumptions, which are really quite worthless in the face of the real facts. I gave evidence in Court about my actual position in the Society - under Oath. Your speculations are really quite meaningless, as most of your speculations about the Highgate case are. You have no knowledge about the true facts of the Highgate case, Anthony, and are only left to rely on your own erroneous speculations. I find this rather sad from a person who likes to style himself as a 'serious researcher'. David Farrant, President, BPOS.
• anthonyhogg December 9, 2011
  Oops. Glitch!
• anthonyhogg December 9, 2011
  Chill, Anonymous. He's just commenting on the tendency for critics to be lumped one with the other. David knows Timelord's not Manchester. Brendan - the forum moderator of SNW - also confirmed it, and remember, he 'exposed' a bunch of Manchester 'defenders' conspicuously using the same IP. Speaking of which, 'Whiny...little...bugger'...hmm...that sounds familiar... Gareth, concerning your weekly appearance here, do you think you could reveal the names of the archives you consulted re: David's 'original' letter? I've told you my source ('missing' paragraph intact). What's yours?
• anthonyhogg December 9, 2011
  Chill, Anonymous. He's just commenting on the tendency for critics to be lumped one with the other. David knows Timelord's not Manchester. Brendan - the forum moderator of SNW - also confirmed it, and remember, he 'exposed' a bunch of Manchester 'defenders' conspicuously using the same IP. Speaking of which, 'Whiny...little...bugger'...hmm...that sounds familiar... Gareth, concerning your weekly appearance here, do you think you could reveal the sources of the archives you consulted re: David's 'original' letter? I've told you my source ('missing' paragraph intact). What's yours?
• Anonymous December 9, 2011
  'Amazing, anyone who believes that Farrant isn't the fine, hard working individual that he thinks he is, is automatically assumed to be Bishop Manchester. ' Insightful, original remarks really aren't your strong point, are they Timelord? Did the doctor tell Sean to take his meds early today? Leaving you reduced to repeating your own old hackneyed cliches? Whiny...little...bugger. Grow a pair Budgers.
• Timelord December 9, 2011
  Amazing, anyone who believes that Farrant isn't the fine, hard working individual that he thinks he is, is automatically assumed to be Bishop Manchester.
• anthonyhogg December 9, 2011
  Trav, 'In 1971 and early 1972, Farrant started to claim he was a "member" of the BOS, which of course was immediately refuted by the society itself. By 1973, he claimed to be its founder and head, which he was not and has never been at any time in his life.' How do you explain the "Occultists' feud goes to court" article, then?
• anthonyhogg December 9, 2011
  David, 'Unfortunately the case was dismissed because of lack of evidence, but led the Magistrate, baroness Birk, to remark at the end . . . It looks as if this started with people being friends, then they fell out and this is what became of it" Whoops, 'Time Traveller'! ', what it also 'proves', is that Manchester was its president, with *no mention of expulsion* (almost a year after it was supposed to have occurred, no less), particularly odd, considering the circumstances. It also 'proves' you guys were friends, which is especially *interesting* in light of the 'feud' and treaties, etc.
• anthonyhogg December 9, 2011
  P.S., David: They certainly took his claim seriously enough to repeatedly label him BOS's president and to print retractions countering your presidential claims.
• anthonyhogg December 9, 2011
  David, 'You see Anthony, we can take this as a typical examole of why I previously stopped answering your same repeated questions. I answered this question quite clearly here only a couple of posts back. I explained it was because nobody really took Mr Manchester's claims seriously.' No, no you did not. A prior discussion concerned your speculation as to why the press didn't cover Manchester's alleged expulsion - after you erroneously stated it did - but does not explain why *you* allowed him to claim credit for the presidency of BOS for so long. So, again, why did *you* allow him to claim credit? Let's not flip this back onto the press or Manchester. I am asking why you, specifically, did. 'That was the answer I gave to your question, and it couldn,t have been more precise.' Only if you were answering the same question. Which you weren't. As to 'word games', once again, you're projecting, because it's obvious you're the one playing word games here through retrofitting, etc. For instance, you said 'please ask a new questioin and not one that I have already answered', even though I specifically asked you whether Hill was a member of BOS and you certainly hadn't answered that, prior.
• A Facebook user December 9, 2011
  One of the Doctor Who fans who posts on here, as if he could travel in time, has asserted that David Farrant had made the threatening telephone calls received by Gillian Bradish in 1970. According to the newspapers at the time, e.g. Daily Mirror, 5 November 1970 ("Remember, remember, Timelord") a typical call ran: "Do you believe in Black Magic? Unless Bradish gives up bail for Farrant, something odd will happen to you and the children." Obviously, it was intended to ensure that David Farrant would be returned to prison. Call me incredulous, if you like, but I am unable to believe that he would have gone out of his way to ensure his re-incarceration. Gareth J. Medway.
• A Facebook user December 9, 2011
  Sorry everyone, that line in my last post should have read . . . "Occultists' feud goes to court", headlined the Ham and High of April 16th 1971, NOT 1973!
• A Facebook user December 9, 2011
  "Their contact was next to non-existent for many years following that episode, as confirmed in Seán Manchester's memoir ). " ..........obviously all true then, cheers Sean, I needed a laugh :-)
• A Facebook user December 9, 2011
  " In 1971 and early 1972, Farrant started to claim he was a "member" of the BOS, which of course was immediately refuted by the society itself. By 1973, he claimed to be its founder and head, which he was not and has never been at any time in his life." ['Time Traveller] . . . So lies 'Time Traveller'' [aka Mr Manchester]. Then how does he explain this? . . . "Occultists' feud goes to court" headlined the Ham and High of April 16th 1973. "A feud between friends led to the court appearance at Highgate last week of the President of the British Occult Society, Mr Sean Manchester, 26, who alleged that allegations made against him by the Founder of the Society, Mr David Farrant, were "part of a malicious war of nerves" against him". I had taken both Hill and Mr Manchester to court for taken Society property (documents and photographs among other things) without permission. Unfortunately the case was dismissed because of lack of evidence, but led the Magistrate, baroness Birk, to remark at the end . . . It looks as if this started with people being friends, then they fell out and this is what became of it" Whoops, 'Time Traveller'!
• Neighbours_Son December 9, 2011
  Mr. Law you needn't worry, I won't be going over any cemetery walls : ) That is what people did in the old times, a part of history really, and not anything to do with the Cabal web networking. Josh is here wearing white trackies, he says to say 'wassup blud'. Jason.
• Time_Traveller December 9, 2011
  Someone pretending to be the late William Law says: "Oh no I see the other crackpot has turned up, I can't bear him AND Farrant staring at me." If this is a reference, as I suspect, to a new member impersonating "Br Keith," that bogus registration and comments attributed to "Br Keith" are as counterfeit as "William Law." The photograph of Keith Maclean has been stolen by the impostor impersonating him from Seán Manchester's portraiture and photography blog where the original picture can be found uncropped at this link: http://seanmanchester.blogspot.com/2009/02/keith_10.html
• A Facebook user December 9, 2011
  I know it is Alex. But I don't want the Bonky One to see private photographs . . . for obvious reasons!
• Time_Traveller December 9, 2011
  Hogg asks: "Was Hill a member of BOS, too?" Hill was at no time a member of the British Occult Society and was not associated with anyone who was (outside of Seán Manchester up to 1968 when Hill absconded with somebody else's wife. Their contact was next to non-existent for many years following that episode, as confirmed in Seán Manchester's memoir ). Let us be absolutely clear about something, Farrant did not claim to be the society's "president" and "founder" and sometimes even "high priest" - which position did not exist because the BOS was a research and study society - until three years after Seán Manchester appeared on British television introduced and captioned as "President, British Occult Society." In 1971 and early 1972, Farrant started to claim he was a "member" of the BOS, which of course was immediately refuted by the society itself. By 1973, he claimed to be its founder and head, which he was not and has never been at any time in his life. He also claims the BOS was founded by him when he was barely twenty-one, but cannot produce anyone to back up his fabrication. Peter Underwood, however, was a senior member of the genuine BOS, as were many other leading paranormal researchers of the day (many of them now sadly deceased). Those who knew Farrant, including his first wife and indeed John Bradish, all attest to him having no involvement whatsoever in these matters and that he was certainly not a member of the BOS.
• A Facebook user December 9, 2011
  Fair enough David. I look forward to finding out when you are ready to announce it. Your lovelife is creating quite a stir in certain quarters.
• A Facebook user December 9, 2011
  "Hi David, Is it true that you and Della are married? If so congratulations!" [Alex Berger]. Sorry Alex, but there are just some things that I can't answer in public. I am not evading your question, but I'm afraid the answer to that will have to be "no comment"! Everyone will know about that soon enough! I am sure you will understand. That is a personal matter, and not for Bonky's ears! David (Farrant0
• A Facebook user December 9, 2011
  "David, 'The name of The British Occult Society was changed to The British Psychic and Occult Society in 1983 and all its members were retained, notwithstanding the change of name', ok then. Why did you 'allow' Manchester to claim presidency - without retraction - before your arrest in August 1970?" [Anthony Hogg]. You see Anthony, we can take this as a typical examole of why I previously stopped answering your same repeated questions. I answered this question quite clearly here only a couple of posts back. I explained it was because nobody really took Mr Manchester's claims seriously. That was the answer I gave to your question, and it couldn,t have been more precise. So how is it that you are just repeating your same questionn again after I have just clearly answered it? I do not have the time to play 'word games' with you Anthony. If you don't want to be put onto 'ignore' again, then please ask a new questioin and not one that I have already answered. You have just had my detailed answer to this point . . . full stop! And In am repeating my answer again. David Farrant, President, BPOS
• A Facebook user December 9, 2011
  Hi David, Is it true that you and Della are married? If so congratulations!
• anthonyhogg December 9, 2011
  David, 'The name of The British Occult Society was changed to The British Psychic and Occult Society in 1983 and all its members were retained, notwithstanding the change of name', ok then. Why did you 'allow' Manchester to claim presidency - without retraction - before your arrest in August 1970? Also, was Hill a member of BOS, too?
• WilliamLaw December 9, 2011
  Oh no I see the other crackpot has turned up, I can't bear him AND Farrant staring at me.
• WilliamLaw December 9, 2011
  Well I don't approve of it Jason and whatever you do, don't go climbing over any cemetery walls. And as for prancing round with pieces of wood looking for vampires, the whole idea is so nutso that it hardly matters how big the stick is. The fact that you can't see that says it all really Bonky. 'Cracked'.
• Time_Traveller December 9, 2011
  Paul Harris ("Alex Berger"): "The left side of David's head is hideously stretched giving him a triangluar chin and a north eye." Farrant looks perfectly normal to me. The vampire mural, however, I agree, is stretched with "a trinagular chin and a north eye." Paul Harris then says: "The text: Farrow's arrest in Highgate Cemetery on 17 August 1970 by police searching for black magic devotees was the beginning of the end for him. [Hardly. David is still going strong today]." This text was probably in the context of it eventually leading to a prison sentence for crimes Farrant committed at Highgate Cemetery. Paul Harris continues: "What the police discovered was a would-be amateur [Not even an amateur, just a would-be amateur!] vampire hunter stalking the graveyard with a crudely fashioned wooden stake [How can a wooden stake be anythingh other than crude?] and a cross. Etc." From the photograph (taken by Tony Hill) of Farrant he is seen brandishing a stake at Highgate Cemetery. It looks like a twig he has picked up off the floor and not an item suitable for the purpose of impaling a vampire. He was a "would-be amateur vampire hunter," I posit, because his intention was really to gain column inches in newspapers and not to encounter a vampire. Those who entered the graveyard with the real intention of pursuing the vampire, but without knowing what they were doing were genuine amateurs. Anyway, that is how I read it. Paul Harris further continues: "It's all designed to portray David in a negative light." I believe it is designed to portray what actually happened, but isn't it rather hypocritical to talk of a factual piece portraying Farrant in a negative light when Farrant did such a good job of it himself, plus the exceptionally negative light in which Farrant delights in portraying others.
• A Facebook user December 9, 2011
  Br_Keith December 8, 2011 "I am not a half wit. Bishop Sean Manchester is a very honourable man and you should all believe that he speaks the truth at all times. If anyone has any questions please ask." ........ ha ha ha :-))
• Neighbours_Son December 8, 2011
  Hello Supreme Leader! Jason.
• A Facebook user December 8, 2011
  "Trav, did you notice you didn't refute what Alex said, but simply flipped it back to Dave? All you did was confirm his comments. You've also dodged answering his question on the BOS's dissolution." [Anthony Hogg] He can't answer it Anthony. The name of The British Occult Society was changed to The British Psychic and Occult Society in 1983 and all its members were retained, notwithstanding the change of name. The Society was never 'dissolved' on the 8th August 1988 (8-8-88) this being a cheap publicity claim effected by Mr Manchester. Many members of the BPOS are also members of The Highgate Vampire Society which was set up in 1996 to deal with a mounting interest in the Highgate case. Members of both Society's are still intact and active. 'Time Travellers' [aka Mr Manchester himself] claim is therefore spurious and without any foundation. David Farrant, President, BPOS
• Neighbours_Son December 8, 2011
  Got notified I am an Associate Cabal member! And I now get email updates from David Farrant himself (not personal, they say "Dear Friends", but so what?) Just got one says they are releasing a Christmas video soon, and some other cabal business. Oh well now I don't feel so bad!
• WilliamLaw December 8, 2011
  Its only keeping you awake because you are worrying about it and thinking about it Jason, its just the moon, same as it always has been, no vampire is going to come and get you, anyway it would probably bump into the guttering that's hanging off and I'd hear it so don't worry and go to bed.
• Br_Keith December 8, 2011
  I am not a half wit. Bishop Sean Manchester is a very honourable man and you should all believe that he speaks the truth at all times. If anyone has any questions please ask.
• Neighbours_Son December 8, 2011
  I will be at Josh's then we are taking skateboards to the car park later. This moon is keeping me awake Mr. Law.
• WilliamLaw December 8, 2011
  Too bloody right, you don't want to be getting yourself mixed up with these nutcases Jason. And no, we are not going round to Farrant's for tea and 'old times' sake' before you ask. Is it Resident Evil night tomorrow or are you going to Josh's house?
• Neighbours_Son December 8, 2011
  I have applied for a Cabal gold level membership but have gotten turned down for being under 18. This sucks. Jason.
• WilliamLaw December 8, 2011
  'with us the taxpayers ending up footing the bill' - well at least you can sleep easy at night Bonky, knowing that YOUR hard earned wonga isnt keeping Farrant in Jack Daniels and fags.
• A Facebook user December 8, 2011
  In the photograph "Farrow at his black magic altar in 1973." The left side of David's head is hideously stretched giving him a triangluar chin and a north eye. The text: Farrow's arrest in Highgate Cemetery on 17 August 1970 by police searching for black magic devotees was the beginning of the end for him. [Hardly. David is still going strong today]. What the police discovered was a would-be amateur [Not even an amateur, just a would-be amateur!] vampire hunter stalking the graveyard with a crudely fashioned wooden stake [How can a wooden stake be anythingh other than crude?] and a cross. Etc. It's all designed to portray David in a negative light.
• anthonyhogg December 8, 2011
  Trav, your 'intimate' knowledge of Manchester and his life's story is getting a tad ludcious now. Can you state what your affiliation to him is? Are you a member of the VRS or FoBSM?
• WilliamLaw December 8, 2011
  'The fact that Farrant uses the "council house" example as a means to put someone down surely demonstrates that Farrant believes that people who live in council properties are somehow inferior.' No it don't, he's just drawing attention to your hypocrisy Bonky. Bonky you are the original wannabe sloane ranger and no mistake. I'm getting you this for Christmas with my winter fuel payment (I expect you donate yours to charity don't you?) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sloane_Ranger_Handbook.jpg
• anthonyhogg December 8, 2011
  Trav, did you notice you didn't refute what Alex said, but simply flipped it back to Dave? All you did was confirm his comments. You've also dodged answering his question on the BOS's dissolution.
• Time_Traveller December 8, 2011
  Seán Manchester is not saying "he's better than everyone else" just because he didn't ever (from the cradle until now) reside in a council house. It is simply a fact. There is certainly no shame in living in council property, but Farrant's allegation is totally false. The fact that Farrant uses the "council house" example as a means to put someone down surely demonstrates that Farrant believes that people who live in council properties are somehow inferior. They are quite obviously not inferior, but Farrant has always been an insufferable snob, telling newspapers he went to the very exclusive Highgate School when he actually went to schools, albeit private, in Sussex and Weymouth from where either ran away or was expelled. Farrant has always looked down on people while he himself squandered an inheritance by boozing it away and other selfish behaviour within a matter of months, then expected the state to look after him for the rest of his life, which unfortuantely it did with us the taxpayers ending up footing the bill for his life of idleness and inflicting sick pranks on others. Neither is Seán Manchester to be held responsible for the actions of any of his ancestors, but if one or more were exceptionally gifted in some way, neither should he deny it or feel ashamed of his family connection. The same, of course, applies to anybody else who has famous or infamous ancestors.
• WilliamLaw December 8, 2011
  I remember reading that in the paper, Bonky. 'I'm so handsome and all the girls love me', wasn't it? Now Bonky I'm not a whoopsie don't get me wrong, or a Tommy Two Ways (remember when Brandreth said that about Ted Heath, that was a shocker). But Farrant's can't help his boat race can he? Were you and Farrant ever rivals in love, Bonky?
• Time_Traveller December 8, 2011
  Paul Harris (aka "Alex Berger"): "Vanity, vanity always vanity." That's Farrant, as confirmed by his ex-girlfriends from Victoria Jervis (1972) through Martine de Sacy, Julia Batsford, Nancy O'Hoski to Catherine Fearnley. They all remarked how incredibly vain Farrant is, and see this as part of his fundamental problem. Julia Batsford (quoted in the Daily Mail, 26 June 1974) said: "All he talked about was his witchcraft. He was very vain.” — Now, Paul, I can find no "doctored pictures" or any "mean-spirited put downs" on the British Occult Society blog. Once again, I ask you to indicate what pictures are allegedly "doctored" and which passages are "mean spirited," as I can find nothing to fit that description.
• A Facebook user December 8, 2011
  Thanks for clearing this up David.
• anthonyhogg December 8, 2011
  Will, it doesn't ring a bell, but I just tried reading through 'Stray ghosts' and, wouldn't ya know it, it's vanished! That said, the statement reminds me of the MAD treaty... David, thanks for the intimate details on those council blocks. Why did you 'allow' Manchester to portray himself as the head of BOS? Alex, 'Still, you wouldn't expect anything less from a decendant of Lord Byron!', I must admit, I find it odd he likes making a big deal of his alleged ancestor - a notorious libertine.
• WilliamLaw December 8, 2011
  Jason I am counting Co-Operative Dairy as milk float.
• WilliamLaw December 8, 2011
  Jason the only figures in white that will come and get you if you get too sucked into this are the men in white coats.
• Neighbours_Son December 8, 2011
  Mr. Law I am counting Hampstead & Highgate Express as Ham n' High. Zoe says that a vampire can inhabit the internet and if I keep posting here it will get me. I remember a movie where there was a haunted website that if you visited this ghost would hunt you down.
• WilliamLaw December 8, 2011
  No shame in living in a council house, that's my opinion, but I don't agree with right to buy, they are there to give people a fighting chance when they're down on their luck. We all have ups and down especially when the children come along and you're always forking out for this or that. Having money don't make you a good person. And living in a council house don't make you a bad person. I'm old enough to remember utility clothing, yes a bit embarrassing but most people was in the same boat in different ways or at least it felt like it. I've heard he's now saying he grew up on some kind of stately home estate, well I think its shameful, he's basically saying he's better than everyone he grew up around, despite the fact that they were most likely grafting hard to put food on the table and keep a roof over their family's heads and just needed a helping hand with the rent.
• A Facebook user December 8, 2011
  Just for the record Alex, he spent most of his infant life in a small Council flat in Nottingham. It was not far from the main line railway station in St. Anne's Well Road These Council blocks were all demolished in 1969 on public health grounds, and new blocks of Council flats erected in their place. I have the appropriate Certrifice giving the exact residents' names and numbers of these flats, but won't publish them here, even though the blocks have long since been demolished. The family moved to London in the mid 1960's and in early 1970, Mr Manchester began his employment as a milkman in Holloway nearby to where his parents then lived. I have a signed solicitor's letter from the Co-Operative Dairey confirming his employment with them. David Farrant, BPOS
• A Facebook user December 8, 2011
  Isn't it curious how sensitive Manchester is to the idea of being associated with "council" property, however spurious these clais may be. vanity, vanity always vanity. Still, you wouldn't expect anything less from a decendant of Lord Byron! No doubt Manchester's garlic bulbs come from Fortnum and Mason.
• WilliamLaw December 8, 2011
  Hoggy you'll know this, where was it I read that bit where Bonky says to Tony Hill 'if I go over the cliff you're coming with me - you're handcuffed to me.'? Was that in Bonky's book Stray Ghosts or somewhere else? Or maybe someone told me about it, my memory's not what it was. Neither's Bonky's by the sound of it.
• anthonyhogg December 8, 2011
  Trav, 'They colluded together to deceive the public, but were to be eclipsed by events which nobody could have possibly forseen', what's your source for the claim. If by 'Seán Manchester's Memoir', you mean, 'Stray ghosts', I don't recall that mentioned there. And, in turn, what is Manchester's proof for the claim? Does he cite anything?
• WilliamLaw December 8, 2011
  Jason I am counting bedsitting room as bedsit. Bonky, how did Farrant make them secret recordings of you sitting at the dining table in the kitchen, if he lives in a bedsit? Did you perch on the Baby Belling?
• Time_Traveller December 8, 2011
  Farrant (in a desperate attempt to deflect questions put by others): "[The] address in Quemeford [sic] Road (a Council; property) was where Seán Manchester lived for some years before he got married." Seán Manchester at no time in his life resided at Quemerford Road, though he did own the freehold on one of the properties many years later. As any search will confirm, no properties in that road have ever been Council owned. Farrant has an obsession with using this falsehood willy-nilly as a put-down. Ironically, he has never worked in his entire life, apart from two weeks as a hospital porter as part of his bail conditions, and resides in a bed-sitting room which exact address was used in 1970 to send bogus letters to the editor of the Hampstead & Highgate to bolster his ghost hoax which also involved Tony Hill and a handful of others. Hill worked part-time for Seán Manchester in the 1960s and that is how they each knew one other, but after Hill's sudden disappearance in 1968 with you-know-who, leaving Seán Manchester without a part-time darkroom assistant, their relationship, such as it was, ceased for a considerable period of time. It is only in this century that the relationship finally healed. Farrant was frequently seen in the company of Hill who took most of the photographs of Farrant in Highgate Cemetery (newspaper staff photographers taking the remainder). They colluded together to deceive the public, but were to be eclipsed by events which nobody could have possibly forseen. Farrant, after coming out of prison, appealed for Hill (calling him "Hutchinson") through magazines and newspapers to come forward to assist in his legal appeal. Hill didn't want to know. (Source: Seán Manchester's Memoir)
• WilliamLaw December 8, 2011
  Actually that reminds me, I seen that thing Bonky put up about Farrant nicking his bow tie. How ridiculous fighting over a bow tie after all these years. Maybe it was a special Presidential bow tie? With magical powers?
• WilliamLaw December 8, 2011
  Jason don't listen to Zoe she is only trying to scare you. No I never seen any vampires in the cemetery, or any ghosts or any aliens. Just Bonky in his bow tie.
• anthonyhogg December 8, 2011
  You mean the guy you 'allowed' to state he was the president of the British Occult Society while you 'stood by'?
• A Facebook user December 8, 2011
  PS And guess who 'Peter Lord' really was? Another alias that Mr Mancester had invented for himself, no less! David Farrant, President, BPOS.
• anthonyhogg December 8, 2011
  Trav, 'It was a temporary accommodation address that Seán Manchester allowed to be used briefly whilst new BOS office were in preparation in Upper Holloway.' In that case, I find Lord's prior lack of disclosure somewhat suspect. What's your source on that statement? 'Because Farrant claimed to be the head of the BOS in the criminal court, journalists were obliged to report what he said, but always (on the instruction of editors) with the prefix "self-styled." So you will find retractions in almost any newspaper where previously Farrant had described himself as being somehow connected to the BOS, ie either its "president," its "founder," and even (bizarrely) its "high priest."' That didn't answer my question. I asked whether you could cite the articles you linked to. The retractions, however, are just that: statements from people saying that David had no association with the Society, not them *acknowledging* who its real head was.
• A Facebook user December 8, 2011
  "Lord's address was Manchester's parent's place (which was printed, along with his reply)." It was a temporary accommodation address that Seán Manchester allowed to be used briefly whilst new BOS office were in preparation in Upper Holloway." ['Time Travel aka Mr Sean Manchester] Don't give us all that Sean, please. Your parents address in Quemeford Road (a Council; property) was where you lived for some years before you got married to Marie and took up residence in a small flat in Holloway Road. How do I know? Because I vivited you on many occasions which I am sure you will remember. Marie had since moved out, but I met your new partner Jacqueline who had moved in, in her place in 1969. In fact, the same flat where you showed your home-made Highgate Vampire film to myself and four other people! Memory must be slipping a bit Sean! David Farrant, President, BPOS.
• anthonyhogg December 8, 2011
  David, first you said the press coverage concerned Manchester's expulsion (''This dispute (about Mr. Manchester's expulsion) was given much ongoing Press coverage at the time'). I said that they actually covered disputes over the *leadership* of the BOS. I also said I would retract my statement if you could cite where this expulsion was covered. Instead of doing that, you speculated on why they *didn't* cover the expulsion (thus confirming what I said about its lack of coverage). You are clearly changing your story, mid-stride...then complaining that *I* am twisting your story. If it's too hard to stick to your story, try and be more cautious with what you say, rather than blaming me for the holes in your own statements. It seems like a ploy to take the heat off questions on your bizarre 'silence' while Manchester was initially claiming presidency of the BOS. As you know, he was the first to publicly do so. You claim that you were its actual head. If that's true, you stood by and let him take 'credit', with your full knowledge. Why? Another point you've dodged concerns your association with Hill and the runaway-come-back-again-wife story. So, is the story true?
• Time_Traveller December 8, 2011
  Hogg: "Lord's address was Manchester's parent's place (which was printed, along with his reply)." It was a temporary accommodation address that Seán Manchester allowed to be used briefly whilst new BOS office were in preparation in Upper Holloway. The final address of the BOS office was Highgate itself. Hogg: "Are you able to cite where those retractions appeared? After all, it'd be good to see whether or not there were any follow-up replies." Because Farrant claimed to be the head of the BOS in the criminal court, journalists were obliged to report what he said, but always (on the instruction of editors) with the prefix "self-styled." So you will find retractions in almost any newspaper where previously Farrant had described himself as being somehow connected to the BOS, ie either its "president," its "founder," and even (bizarrely) its "high priest."
• A Facebook user December 8, 2011
  "I asked you to cite an article that shows the coverage concerned Manchester's expulsion. You didn't. So, no, I didn't agree with what you said. If the press *were* aware, they would have been more explicit about it, hence why I've asked you to cite something, not add 'behind-the-scenes knowledge', i.e. hearsay. [Anthony Hogg] . . . This is typical of you Anthony, and why I won't keep answering your similar repeated questions about the Highgate Vampire case. I have already explained why the Press didn't print the 'expilsion angle'. I couldn't have been clearer - but you are still trying to twist my answer to fit into your own erroneous conceptions. YOU HAVE BEEN ANSWERED. I am not going to repeat my answer again. If you really cannot accept the truth; well, that's your problem - not mine! David Farrant, President, BPOS
• Time_Traveller December 8, 2011
  Farrant: "Isaaman later admitted that he only 'played Manchester's story for laughs'! which included his claims to be a leader of the British Occult Society." Gerald Isaaman is still alive and can be found on the internet. I suggest that if anyone is of a mind to test David Farrant's falsehood they should contact the ex-editor of the Hampstead & Highgate Express and ask him. Isaaman might todays claim that he didn't take the vampire reports from local people seriously, but he clearly did at the time because the front page headline of his newspaper was pre-occupied with it from February through March 1970. Disbelief in things supernatural has increased exponentially down the years and he might be a little embarassed that his sober newspaper gave it so much prominence back then, but he will definitely confirm that Seán Manchester was the president of the British Occult Society, as will any other journalist or editor from that time. He will also confirm that David Farrant did not claim membership of the British Occult Society throughout the period he knew him. Farrant sent Isaaman letters, spoke to him several times on the telephone, and met him at his Hampstead office where he openly supported the vampire theory. Isaaman will confirm that Farrant was well and truly on the blood-sucking vampire bandwagon in 1970.
• anthonyhogg December 8, 2011
  Oh, and speaking of citations, Trav, are you able to cite where those retractions appeared? After all, it'd be good to see whether or not there were any follow-up replies.
• anthonyhogg December 8, 2011
  Trav, you could also say that Manchester hopped on board David's 'ghost story', by that logic. Incidentally, one of the articles mentions a Peter Lord - who was also one of the respondents to David's original letter. He said he'd 'often heard its pitiful cry which seems to be the one word – probably its name – Hugo!’ Lord's address was Manchester's parent's place (which was printed, along with his reply), wasn't it.
• anthonyhogg December 8, 2011
  Incidentally, David, you 'carefully avoided' saying why *you* let Manchester publicly claim Presidency of BOS for so long without saying a word. You're also yet to confirm whether or not the story of Tony running away with Mary, etc. was true or not. I'm afraid I don't buy 'William's' line about privacy for yourself, because you certainly didn't shy from discussing all the times you cheated on her in your autobiography, 'In the shadow of the Highgate vampire'. I ask - as I said before - because you inferred that Tony was Manchester's friend ('He and his old 'side-kick' Anthony Hill'), but it appears you and Hill enjoyed a bit of an acquaintance, too. If the story's true, I find it odd that Hill would offer you the hospitality of his 'coal bunker', only to team up on you later.
• Time_Traveller December 8, 2011
  Paul Harris: "Thanks Time_Travellor, that's a nice blog for a change, until you get to the bottom when the obligatory mention of David Farrant is made, complete with doctored pictures and the usual mean-spirited put downs." I can find no "doctored pictures" or any "mean-spirited put downs." Citations please!Farrant tried to insinuate himself into the case of the Highgate Vampire in the media in 1970 and has continued to do so ever since, so I daresay it was thought necessary to refute the sort of thing we are witnessing on this blog (and everywhere else where he posts) because David Farrant had absolutely no connection to the British Occult Society, as stated by the BOS on any occasion he falsely claimed in this or that newspaper to be a society member. Link: http://www.holygrail-church.fsnet.co.uk/Shroudeater_files/image013.jpg Any technical questions you have about the British Occult Society should be directed to its last president before it was dissolved. He has a blog for that purpose which is located at: http://therightreverendseanmanchester.blogspot.com
• anthonyhogg December 8, 2011
  Not playing with words, David. You said the articles concerned expulsion ('This dispute (about Mr. Manchester's expulsion) was given much ongoing Press coverage at the time'). See? But they concerned leadership *disputes*, i.e. who was the *real* head of BOS. I asked you to cite an article that shows the coverage concerned Manchester's expulsion. You didn't. So, no, I didn't agree with what you said. If the press *were* aware, they would have been more explicit about it, hence why I've asked you to cite something, not add 'behind-the-scenes knowledge', i.e. hearsay. Indeed, you've proved my point when you resort to speculation - 'They may have steered clear of the expulsion angle, because the UK Press had set guidelines and directives about the laws of libel'. Yet, you said they actually covered his *expulsion*. Can't have it both ways, Dave. You said I had 'carefully avoided your point' about a pre-existing business comparison. No, I hadn't. I said, and I repeat again, that the first *public* mention of BOS was through Manchester's mouth. I even said that I wasn't disputing the Society's date-of-origin (at least, going on what you've said), but was asking you why you didn't 'pipe up' when Manchester was claiming presidency of it. Why it took you so long, that is. What makes this even more bizarre, is that you appeared along side him in the media while he was making said claims. All I'm asking is, why didn't you say anything at the time? As to Isaaman's comments, when he said he 'played the story' for laughs, he wasn't just referring to Manchester's claims. Isaaman didn't take the story at all seriously. Don't believe me? I invite anyone here to ask him (yep, he's still kicking), although, be word: he might give you a rude reply! Unfortunately, you're making a lot of assumptions on what Isaaman meant, including the claims to BOS presidency. Presuming he knew who was the *actual* leader of the Society, yet went ahead and printed Manny's claim, anyway, that says a lot about Isaaman's integrity, doesn't it?
• anthonyhogg December 8, 2011
  Not playing with words, David. You said the articles concerned expulsion ('This dispute (about Mr. Manchester's expulsion) was given much ongoing Press coverage at the time'). See? But they concerned leadership *disputes*, i.e. who was the *real* head of BOS. I asked you to cite an article that shows the coverage concerned Manchester's expulsion. You didn't. So, no, I didn't agree with what you said. If the press *were* aware, they would have been more explicit about it, hence why I've asked you to cite something, not add 'behind-the-scenes knowledge', i.e. hearsay. Indeed, you've proved my point when you resort to speculation - 'They may have steered clear of the expulsion angle, because the UK Press had set guidelines and directives about the laws of libel'. Yet, you said they actually covered his *expulsion*. Can't have it both ways, Dave. You said I had 'carefully avoided your point' about a pre-existing business comparison. No, I hadn't. I said, and I repeat again, that the first *public* mention of BOS was through Manchester's mouth. I even said that I wasn't disputing the Society's date-of-origin (at least, going on what you've said), but was asking you why you didn't 'pipe up' when Manchester was claiming presidency of it. Why it took you so long, that is. What makes this even more bizarre, is that you appeared along side him in the media while he was making said claims. All I'm asking is, why didn't you say anything at the time? As to Isaaman's comments, when he said he 'played the story' for laughs, he wasn't just referring to Manchester's claims. Isaaman didn't take the story at all seriously. Don't believe me? I invite anyone here to ask him (yep, he's still kicking), although, be word: he might give you a rude reply! Unfortunately, you're making a lot of assumptions on what Isaaman meant, including the claims to BOS presidency. Presuming he knew who was the *actual* leader of the Society, yet went ahead and printed Manny's claim, anyway, that says a lot about Isaaman's integrity, doesn't it?
• anthonyhogg December 8, 2011
  Not playing with words, David. You said the articles concerned expulsion ('This dispute (about Mr. Manchester's expulsion) was given much ongoing Press coverage at the time'). See? But they concerned leadership *disputes*, i.e. who was the *real* head of BOS. I asked you to cite an article that shows the coverage concerned Manchester's expulsion. You didn't. So, no, I didn't agree with what you said. If the press *were* aware, they would have been more explicit about it, hence why I've asked you to cite something, not add 'behind-the-scenes knowledge', i.e. hearsay. Indeed, you've proved my point when you resort to speculation - 'They may have steered clear of the expulsion angle, because the UK Press had set guidelines and directives about the laws of libel'. Yet, you said they actually covered his *expulsion*. Can't have it both ways, Dave. You said I had 'carefully avoided your point' about a pre-existing business comparison. No, I hadn't. I said, and I repeat again, that the first *public* mention of BOS was through Manchester's mouth. I even said that I wasn't disputing the Society's date-of-origin (at least, going on what you've said), but was asking you why you didn't 'pipe up' when Manchester was claiming presidency of it. Why it took you so long, that is. What makes this even more bizarre, is that you appeared along side him in the media while he was making said claims. All I'm asking is, why didn't you say anything at the time? As to Isaaman's comments, when he said he 'played the story' for laughs, he wasn't just referring to Manchester's claims. Isaaman didn't take the story at all seriously. Don't believe me? I invite anyone here to ask him (yep, he's still kicking), although, be word: he might give you a rude reply! Unfortunately, you're making a lot of assumptions on what Isaaman meant, including the claims to BOS presidency. Presuming he knew who was the *actual* leader of the Society, yet went ahead and printed Manny's claim, anyway, that says a lot about Isaaman's integrity, doesn't it?
• A Facebook user December 7, 2011
  Ahem,Timelord..........still waiting :-//
• A Facebook user December 7, 2011
  ". . .stop going on American radio programmes speaking 2 hours of bile about someone, or is that too much to ask?" ['Timelord]. Yes, it IS too much to ask 'Timelord', when I have never spoken about yourself on any American radio or TV programmes. That is the whole point! If you can show me where I have (in fact, I haven't) then perhaps people here might be more sympathetic towards your spurious accusations! So, please give people here some reference to where I have ever discussed you as yourself?? Well? David Farrant, President, BPOS.
• Timelord December 7, 2011
  Where have I cut and pasted things from then Mr Farrant? Come on, name your sources! Oh I forgot, you never do! As for "hatred". I don't hate you or Jamie. i actually pity you - it is you so overwhelmed with 40 years of hate towards someone who is actually better than you. Come on Dave, make peace and live your final years with some dignity, stop going on American radio programmes speaking 2 hours of bile about someone, or is that too much to ask?
• A Facebook user December 7, 2011
  " I have not sort authorization from BSM nor am likely to, I have a right to an opinion and I exercise it here. My opinion is simple: David Farrant is a Charlatan, a liar and a fraud." [Time Lord] . . . I think you have shown yourself in your true colours here 'Time Lord'. A person so eaten up with apparent hatred towards Jamie and myself, that you can only resort to personal insults. And then you have the audassity to pretend that you do not even know BSM ('bishop' Sean Manchester) even though you are cut n' pasting his (your) own malicious material. I don't think people here will be fooled that easily, 'Time Lord'; especially from a person who seems to be obsessed with young children in a very unhealthy sort of way. Of course, we should remember, that you have not been influenced by 'BSM' in any way (as you keep stressing) or are not even aware that he says exactly the same things as yourself in a desperate attempt to slur other innocent people. I think you really need some sympathetic guidance 'Time Lord', before you call other people 'charlatans'! David Farrant, President, BPOS.
• A Facebook user December 7, 2011
  Well you know the answer to that.... don't claim it! While I've got your attention do you think it's time Sean came clean about the occult/nazi pics as well as his doctoring of Davids flyers. I did try asking him but he said he wasn't going to talk to me any more. To be fair I can't say I blame him, if I was him I wouldn't want to be exposed as a liar either!
• Timelord December 7, 2011
  "Come off it 'Timelord' you use the same cut and paste tactics, plagiarism and nastiness Sean does. You may not be him but you certainly post what your told to. I can see why you're so bothered though, I'd be highly embarrassed myself if someone thought I was him!" Personally I'd be embarrassed at claiming to be the son of 'Dirty' David Farrant.
• A Facebook user December 7, 2011
  "Read what I wrote again, David. You said this press coverage discussed Manchester's *expulsion* from the group. But the press coverage actually discussed the *leadership disputes*. [Anthony Hogg] . . . Stop playing with words, Anthony. My meaning was quite clear and you have, in fact, just agreed with it! I DID say the debate about leadership was frequently in the Press. The Press were well aware of his expulsion at the time: indeed, that's why they did those stories. They may have steered clear of the expulsion angle, because the UK Press had set guidelines and directives about the laws of libel. Similarly, if Mr Manchester had told them that I had been expelled, they couldn't have printed it for the same reason. . . I notice you have carefully avoided my point that because an individual or organisation had not appeared in a newspaper, that would mean they never existed (by your reckoning at least!)..... As to your assumption that I 'knew' but didn't do anything about it, that's quite simple: because nobody took Mr Manchester's claims seriously - including the then editor of the Hampstead and Highgate Express, Gerald Isaaman, whom Manchester told that the reported ghost was really the 'King Vampire of the Undead! Isaaman later admitted that he only 'played Manchester's story for laughs'! which included his claims to be a leader of the British Occult Society. He (Manchester) had not got around to advancing his story at this stage. But not long afterwards claims that he 'staked' the Undead being, as also its disciple Lusia after she had changed into a 'giant spider'. David Farrant, President, BPOS.
• Neighbours_Son December 7, 2011
  I am still looking for info to find out if the vampire was real or not. That link to the British Occult Society does not have anything about the vampire. I followed the link to their Facebook page but it is all about David Farrant, no vampire. Jason.......................http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=92673047342
• Neighbours_Son December 7, 2011
  Mr. Law Zoe says what the British Occult Society wrote about the vampire sounds awfully convincing about terrifying corporeal manifestations being real and all. It is a bit scary. Are you sure you never saw anything in the cemetery? Jason.
• A Facebook user December 7, 2011
  Here is my question to Time_Traveller in case he missed it the first time: Why was the BOS dissolved? Why was it done on 8/8/88? Is there some significance in that number? Why were all the members happy to call it a day, surely there must still have been some occult interest among them? Did they form a breakaway group of their own?
• A Facebook user December 7, 2011
  Thanks Time_Travellor, that's a nice blog for a change, until you get to the bottom when the obligatory mention of David Farrant is made, complete with doctored pictures and the usual mean-spirited put downs.
• anthonyhogg December 7, 2011
  Mmmm...there probably is someone here by that name, Will, but probably not the one you're referring to. The name doesn't ring a bell to me.
• anthonyhogg December 7, 2011
  Trav, 'The British Occult Society was originally formed as an umbrella organisation circa 1860. Much of its activity in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century is shrouded in mystery', because there's no record of it from that time. I even contacted the Ghost Society for confirmation. No record suggests it was founded much, much, much later. It's nice to see you at least 'citing' your sources this time, but you're only making your contributions redundant by simply copying them wholesale.
• WilliamLaw December 7, 2011
  Do you have Jeremy Kyle in Australia?
• anthonyhogg December 7, 2011
  Says the guy pretending to be a dead cemetery caretaker. Will, chill. It's relevant. Follow the context, wouldja? David defers 'knowledge' of Hill to Manchester, but the evidence suggests he was a mutual acquaintance. David's familiar with the story and he certainly hasn't shied from the sordid details of his life with her. Publicly, I might add. If you don't want to know about it, that's cool. Your concern has been heard ... Trav, are you on autopilot or something? Alex asked you a pretty specific question, and your response is an unrelated copy-n-paste job. Focus, man, focus!
• Time_Traveller December 7, 2011
  The British Occult Society was originally formed as an umbrella organisation circa 1860. Much of its activity in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century is shrouded in mystery. The BOS came out of the closet, however, in the mid-twentieth century before finally disappearing in 1988. During that period it was presided over by Seán Manchester who placed emphasis on investigating the claims of the occult and the study and research of paranormal phenomena. Out of this history sprang the Vampire Research Society (formerly a specialist unit within the BOS), that was founded by the president of the British Occult Society who first appeared on British television on 13 March 1970. Seán Manchester had informed the public on 27 February 1970 that demonic disturbances and manifestations in the vicinity of Highgate Cemetery were vampiric. Shortly afterwards he appeared on television on 13 March 1970 to repeat his theory. The suspected tomb was located and an exorcism performed in August 1970. This proved ineffective as the hauntings and animal deaths continued. Indeed, they multiplied. All manner of people were by now jumping on the bandwagon; including film-makers, rock musicians and sundry publicity-seekers. Most were frightened off. Some who interloped became fascinated by the black arts with disastrous consequences. In the meantime, Seán Manchester and his colleagues pursued the principal source of the contagion at Highgate until it was properly exorcised in the ancient and approved manner. It was a nightmare journey which took them into a nether region inhabited by terrifying corporeal manifestations. Link: http://britishoccultsociety.blogspot.com
• A Facebook user December 7, 2011
  Come off it 'Timelord' you use the same cut and paste tactics, plagiarism and nastiness Sean does. You may not be him but you certainly post what your told to. I can see why you're so bothered though, I'd be highly embarrassed myself if someone thought I was him!
• WilliamLaw December 7, 2011
  Whats it got to do with vampires and ghosts and Highgate (Cemetery, not village, they're all a bunch of incestuous inbreds in the Village)? I'm just saying, its not gentlemanly asking other people for an inventory of their dirty laundry. Bit News of the World, ain't it. I don't wan't to know who he or she copped off with, personally, and I don't know why anyone else would.
• Time_Traveller December 7, 2011
  David Farrant’s first ever television appearance occurred when Sandra Harris interviewed him for Thames Television’s "Today" programme. This very brief interview in Swains Lane was one of a number where people who had alleged to have seen a rumoured vampire gave their account. The "Today" report mostly featured the findings of the British Occult Society and its president, Seán Manchester, who warned on the programme against Farrant’s proposed vampire hunt in Highgate Cemetery. The lone incursion nevertheless went ahead five months later, resulting in Farrant’s arrest. The second television interview with Farrant consisted largely of a reconstruction of that event. David Farrant was not a member of the British Occult Society which, until its dissolution in August 1988, was strictly an organisation for the examination of alleged occult and paranormal phenomena. It did not countenance occult practices. Its president was an exorcist who, in later years, entered holy orders. Link: http://www.holygrail-church.fsnet.co.uk/24Hours.htm
• anthonyhogg December 7, 2011
  I am merely asking if the story distributed by Manchester - it's out there - is true or not.
• anthonyhogg December 7, 2011
  WilliamLaw, I'm guessing you haven't read his autobiog, in which he mentions cheating on her multiple times.
• WilliamLaw December 7, 2011
  Bit much asking a man to rake up a load of stuff about his ex-wife isn't it Hoggy? Grant a man a bit of privacy.
• Timelord December 7, 2011
  "The "treaties," the "seals" (as mentioned on this thread by Farrant) and Seán Manchester's (probably photocopied) signature are all counterfeit." . . . ['Mr Sean Manchester, aka 'Timelord']. Just as you are personally writing here as 'Time Traveller', Sean, is counterfeit! David Farrant, President, BPOS - proof yet again that David Farrant is a liar. Also that he doesn't listen to people he claims to be 'friends' of his (like Brendan Kilmartin) who have told him that I am not Bishop Manchester. David Farrant - a fraud, a liar and a Charlatan.
• anthonyhogg December 7, 2011
  Trav, 'Hogg is still ignoring the fact that this is black propaganda issuing from Farrant. The "treaties," the "seals" (as mentioned on this thread by Farrant) and Seán Manchester's (probably photocopied) signature are all counterfeit' etc., etc. Do you mind? I'm having a conversation. David, 'Sorry Anthony, wrong yet again. The Press only printed what Manchester claimed to them or told them. But they also repeatedly quoted myself as repudiating his claims.' Read what I wrote again, David. You said this press coverage discussed Manchester's *expulsion* from the group. But the press coverage actually discussed the *leadership disputes*. If you can cite contemporary coverage which mentions you expelling Manchester from BOS, then I'll happily retract my statement. 'So your repeated assertion about saying the Society only existed is a rather ludicurous one.' Not at all. Read what I said, properly, David. I said the earliest *public mention* of the Society was from Manchester. I even provided the date. 'It is like saying an ancient family business (say a shop, for example) suddenly decided to advertise in modern Yellow Pages to expand or advertise its wares. Your arguement (if people even accepted it) would mean that that given family business never existed before it was mentioned in Yellow pages! Come on Anthony! You can do better than that!', and I have been. I haven't been discussing the Society's founding. I said that the earliest *public* mention of the Society was by Manchester (true). I said that a week later, you appeared along side him, and didn't dispute Manchester's claim (true). I'm saying a week later, you appeared with him on telly, still not disputing his claim (true). I asked you why you didn't. Why did it take so long - on your part - to clarify your BOS presidency? I also asked whether that story about Tony running off with your first wife, etc. was true.
• WilliamLaw December 7, 2011
  I have vampire, demonic, coal cellar, Tony Hill, charlatan and John Pope but I've lost my reading glasses so I'm going a bit slow.
• Neighbours_Son December 7, 2011
  I am counting 'asininity' for 'asinine', 4th row right.
• Neighbours_Son December 7, 2011
  We have an early finish on Wednesday Mr. Law. I started even with you and also have 6 on the bottom rows to include the free space at the centre. I hope you are feeling better today.
• WilliamLaw December 7, 2011
  On account of giving you a head start (I get a lot of bingo practice at my club so it only seems fair), I have 6 out of 25, no corners, 2 each on bottom 3 rows. Why aren't you at school Jason?
• Neighbours_Son December 7, 2011
  The bottom 2 rows of the bingo board almost full, but I need to fill some at the top now please! How are you doing Mr. Law. Jason.
• A Facebook user December 7, 2011
  "The "treaties," the "seals" (as mentioned on this thread by Farrant) and Seán Manchester's (probably photocopied) signature are all counterfeit." . . . ['Mr Sean Manchester, aka 'Timelord']. Just as you are personally writing here as 'Time Traveller', Sean, is counterfeit! David Farrant, President, BPOS
• A Facebook user December 7, 2011
  "'This dispute (about Mr. Manchester's expulsion) was given much ongoing Press coverage at the time', the press coverage I've seen doesn't discuss expulsion, rather who was the *real* leader of the organisation." [Anthony Hogg] . . . Sorry Anthony, wrong yet again. The Press only printed what Manchester claimed to them or told them. But they also repeatedly quoted myself as repudiating his claims. There is a huge difference. So your repeated assertion about saying the Society only existed is a rather ludicurous one. It is like saying an ancient family business (say a shop, for example) suddenly decided to advertise in modern Yellow Pages to expand or advertise its wares. Your arguement (if people even accepted it) would mean that that given family business never existed before it was mentioned in Yellow pages! Come on Anthony! You can do better than that! David Farrant, President, BPOS.
• Time_Traveller December 7, 2011
  Hogg says: "David, cheers for that explanation, re: treaties. I am still curious as to why you'd engage in a treaty with him." Hogg is still ignoring the fact that this is black propaganda issuing from Farrant. The "treaties," the "seals" (as mentioned on this thread by Farrant) and Seán Manchester's (probably photocopied) signature are all counterfeit. It is so funny to watch Farrant feed Hogg with falsehood and watch him do all the running, fetching and carrying. Why would he need to pay a publicity agent when he has little Anthony Hogg doing all the leg work for him? Surely that merits a complimentary cartoon booklet for Farrant's Australian "cousin" this Christmas? It's the very least Farrant could do for all the extra coverage Hogg is giving to his fabrications.
• WilliamLaw December 7, 2011
  'No wonder he wants to whitewash he predilection for sex magick with young boys!' Shirley that's the pot calling the kettle black, Bonky...do I get a free flake with that?
• Time_Traveller December 7, 2011
  John Russell Pope (allegedly): "Police discovered im jewish and took the Kahbalah [sic], international order of as satanism, and claimed id [sic] performed a ritual under a bridge and iniated [sic] him, sex entered it later in a later triel [sic] and was through out, and i was found guilty as charged with witchcraft stuff." Yet throughout the 1970s and early 1980s in press interviews and newspaper articles about him, Pope revealed his utter contempt for witchcraft, regarding it as something so beneath him he would not give it consideration. He proclaimed himself to be a ritual magician and a Satanist. He was unequivocal about this. As for being "Jewish," he supported the National Front, wrote articles for them, and his late uncle (in whose Hackney flat he now resides) was a BNP candidate. Pope also has a track record of belonging to survivalist extreme right wing groups. When he voiced his politics in the past it was standard far right stuff. He is also a monarchist, but sees himself as the rightful "king." He supported Farrant's WWP, whilst tolerating the "witchcraft" element, because it stood to ban communism and Christianity, both things Pope detests. There was certainly no talk of being Jewish or "a third degree witch" (doubtless "initiated" by Farrant) as currently claimed by way of compensation for his past on his website. Yet it was not so long ago he attended the Springbok Club with whom he still shares excellent relations. No wonder he wants to whitewash he predilection for sex magick with young boys!
• WilliamLaw December 7, 2011
  'David Farrant owed no connection to the British Occult Society other than to falsely claim an association with it from 1971 onwards after failing to elicit support from the BOS and its president for his silly cemetery stunts' Does giving someone a leg-up so you can take a photo of them on top of the cemetery gates and later publish it in a book count as 'support'?
• A Facebook user December 7, 2011
  Slightly changing the subject, can I ask "Time_Traveller" why the BOS was dissolved? Why was it done on 8/8/88? Is there some significance in that number? Why were all the members happy to call it a day, surely there must still have been some occult interest among them? Did they form a breakaway group of their own?
• WilliamLaw December 7, 2011
  Bonky that don't actually mean a thing. She was trying to keep her kids' dad out the slammer, even though they WERE seperated. Anyone can see that. And could at the time for that matter.
• Time_Traveller December 7, 2011
  David Farrant owed no connection to the British Occult Society other than to falsely claim an association with it from 1971 onwards after failing to elicit support from the BOS and its president for his silly cemetery stunts. Regarding the newspaper articles referred to by Farrant, I seriously suggest the journalists in question are contacted for verification of who gave them the stories. It was Farrant in every instance. He is quoted throughout all the articles. Seán Manchester was misquoted in just one (a fabricated, albeit harmless, quote) and that newspaper (Sunday Mirror) were later obliged to publish a retraction. Farrant was the person behind all the unwanted publicity. His absurd claim that he was somehow part of a serious investigation into the supernatural goings on at Highgate Cemetery is also exposed to the light of day when anyone who actually knew him at the time is heard. His first wife gave testimony under oath at her husband's notorious trials at the Old Bailey, as recorded by The Sun newspaper's court reporter on 21 June 1974: "The wife of self-styled occult priest David Farrant told yesterday of giggles in the graveyard when the pubs had closed. `We would go in, frighten ourselves to death and come out again,' she told an Old Bailey jury. Attractive Mary Farrant - she is separated from her husband and lives in Southampton - said they had often gone to London's Highgate Cemetery with friends `for a bit of a laugh.' But they never caused any damage. `It was just a silly sort of thing that you do after the pubs shut,' she said. Mrs Farrant added that her husband's friends who joined in the late night jaunts were not involved in witchcraft or the occult. She had been called as a defence witness by her 28-year-old husband. They have not lived together for three years."
• anthonyhogg December 7, 2011
  David, what I find curious, re: the disputed leadership of the BOS, is that Manchester was the first to publicly claim it (27/2/70). Yet, the following week, you appeared alongside him, without dispute (6/3/70). When you appeared on 'Today', a week later, he was again billed as its President without so much as a 'boo' from you. Why is this? Re: Tony Hill, he was a friend of yours too, was he not? 'Hutchinson'. Haven't you previously stated that he took a variety of pics of you and - is Manchester's claim that he briefly ran off with your first wife, then came back, and let you stay in the infamous 'coal cellar' true? Now, as to this: 'This dispute (about Mr. Manchester's expulsion) was given much ongoing Press coverage at the time', the press coverage I've seen doesn't discuss expulsion, rather who was the *real* leader of the organisation.
• anthonyhogg December 7, 2011
  Timey, 'I do not speak on anyones behalf, Bishop Manchesters or otherwise. I speak on my own behalf and I speak my own views. I know this doesn't fit the Farrant supporter's MO, who assume anyone who defends BSM is automatically BSM, which is a juvenile argument (but then David Farrant does act like a little boy). I have not sort authorization from BSM nor am likely to, I have a right to an opinion and I exercise it here. My opinion is simple: David Farrant is a Charlatan, a liar and a fraud.' If anything Timey, you're about the only credible balance we have here (in terms of being a Manchester sympathiser). It is a shame you're tucked into the same box - as I have been on occasion - despite the 2 + 2 = 5 defence. That said, you can see how circular this has been getting. Even if David did embody those characteristics, do you think he's the only one who does?
• A Facebook user December 7, 2011
  "David, cheers for that explanation, re: treaties. I am still curious as to why you'd engage in a treaty with him, at all, especially as one point you mentioned ending 'hostilities'. On the surface, it appears the treaties were also designed to 'gag order' the other. Would that be a fair assessment?" . . . [Anthony Hogg]. I will answer that Anthony, simply because it is not about the Highgate 'vampire' case repeating question which I have already answered. It was a question of 'gagging' him, but really to stop him involving my name in his on-going publicity stunts. He and his old 'side-kick' Anthony Hill had been doing this since my 'vampire hunting' case in 1970: mainly by using photographs of myself which they had obtained or taken themselves, and, soon afterwards, by harassing members of the British Occult Society after Mr. Manchester had been expelled from the Society. This dispute (about Mr. Manchester's expulsion) was given much ongoing Press coverage at the time. For example, the Sunday People of October 9, 1977 stated in a lead article . . . "His (Mr Manchester's)other claims to distinction are equally doubtful. His claim to be president of the British Occult Society, brought severe attack from a rival, David Farrant, who is one of Britian's leading witches. The two planned a 'witchcraft duel to the death in 1973' to prove who really was president. The duel, in which a cat was supposed to be slaughtered as a sacrifice, never took place" [Sunday People] . . . Stuff like this was all over the Brirish Press at the time; mainly involving similar made by Mr Manchester and counter-claims made by myself. So the signing of the Treaties was really not so unusual; notwithstanding that Mr Manchester broke the terms and conditions of these on both occassions. When I first posted on this thread, it was to set the record straight about a large piece Dylan had already written which named Mr Manchester and myself in connection with the Highgate 'vampre'. I considered some of his comments were inaccurate, just being repeat statements (and erroneous ones) that had been re-hashed from the Press. So I replied. Its as simple as that! David Farrant.
• anthonyhogg December 7, 2011
  In terms of 'balance', Trav, I'm all for it. But you're not presenting something balanced here, when you refuse to acknowledge Manchester's own dodginess while vilifying Dave, his friends and me for ours - perceived or otherwise. That's when you cross the line into 'campaign'. Sure, it's been happening with Dave and his side, too, but at least they're not trying to claim moral highground on the issue. Timey, '- sounds like you are describing your father there. Ask him about Catherine.' Ironically, it describes both of them and Catherine will verify that on *both* counts. This is what I mean when I say the more the cricisims/attacks intensify, the more they'll start to echo each other. Alex, 'If anything these first exchanges are between David and Anthony, with Manchester a side issue.' Thank you! I'm glad someone's paid attention! lol And yes, Manchester allows *no one* to speak on his behalf online. That's not just a smart-ass comment on my behalf, but something voiced by Manchester, himself: 'Nobody is authorised to speak in my stead.' See: http://therightreverendseanmanchester.blogspot.com/2009/08/from-dna-to-demons.html 'I find it weird that so much of Vapirologist/Time_Traveller's comments are aimed at David. As I said before, the correct thing to do is to "Turn the Other Cheek". See Matthew 5:38-42 for guidance on how to behave', indeed, which echoes, in a way, Manchester's other pronouncements about 'ignoring' those people. Not only have Vampirologist/Time_Traveller/Anonymous gone on the warpath against me, David and Jamie - primarily - but neither of them speak of their *own* involvement in the case. It took several tries to get Vampirologist to admit he was a VRS member. Meanwhile, Time_Traveller - who excessively plagiarises, just like Manchester, claims only to have 'met' him. Bring something to the table, guys!
• WilliamLaw December 7, 2011
  'Farrant has an obsession with certain numbers, and 374 obviously fits the bill fo some reason. For many years in the 1970s he gave his age as "thirty-three" to the press. He did so when he was twenty-eight and was still doing so ten years later. Only Farrant knows why, but at least he is not persisting with the claim now he is double that age.' Must admit it would be quite funny if he did start coming out with that. What other bizarre facts do you just happen to know about Farrant, 'Time Traveller' who, lest we forget most certainly is NOT Bonky (MUST THINK WE WERE ALL BORN YESTERDAY). Re: being 33 for a few years, I see Farrant's young oriental lady friend reckons he's got a few Bibles about the place, maybe it was a Jesus thing, he's always been one of those hippy types from what I can tell. That said, from what I remember you were the one dressing up as Jesus with a balsa wood cross, Bonky, in yet ANOTHER attempt to get yourself in the paper, with that half wit 'the boy's not right' long hair traipsing along behind you like a lovesick puppy. Haven't varied your act much, have you?. Oh and this bit made me laugh, you say about Farrant being twice that age now - he's not the only one tho, is he sonny jim??! Made me laugh when you was banging on about wanting people to respect their elders too - when you make silly pictures of people with green faces what get stuck on people's computer screens and pigs with guns. Grow up man.
• Timelord December 7, 2011
  I do not speak on anyones behalf, Bishop Manchesters or otherwise. I speak on my own behalf and I speak my own views. I know this doesn't fit the Farrant supporter's MO, who assume anyone who defends BSM is automatically BSM, which is a juvenile argument (but then David Farrant does act like a little boy). I have not sort authorization from BSM nor am likely to, I have a right to an opinion and I exercise it here. My opinion is simple: David Farrant is a Charlatan, a liar and a fraud.
• anthonyhogg December 7, 2011
  Trav, 'Timelord is not listed on any of the social network sites where Hogg has accumulated innumerable friends in common with Farrant. This includes both Facebook accounts held by Hogg. Timelord is not among any of Hogg's friends.' So because you can't find him on my Facebook(s), that means...I'm not friends with him? You need to get out more, mate. 'However, when either of these two societies appear at the head of a Facebook group, forum or blog, courtesy of Farrant, the "374 members" of each are sadly reluctant to manifest and all we find is the predictable sprinkling of what you would expect, ie random people who belong to neither "society" whose total is a small fraction of the "374" we keep hearing about.' So, like Manchester's forums, then. 'Farrant predictably brought his son and cronies into the scrap (never wanting to fight his own battles) to inflame matters and make them worse', or, perhaps, they arrived of their own accord, as did you and 'Anonymous'... 'Anthony Hogg will use his twisted form of logic to argue that people like The Vampirologist, myself and others should not have come here in defence of Seán Manchester, but is it really fair that only one side has a voice because that is what will be the case if Hogg had his way?' Twisted? Not at all. I've quoted Manchester, himself, on the subject, and suggested his advice be followed by his friends/followers. I also pointed out that the advice is being blatantly ignored by the same. That's true. 'The solution, of course, would be if Farrant was able to comment without ranting on about Seán Manchester and starting yet another flame war, but he just can't do it.' Face it, Trav: you're part of the 'flame war', too. 'Meanwhile, Seán Manchester himself has not mentioned David Farrant once in any television, radio or recorded interview he has given since his debut on British television on 13 March 1970.' Which 'cleverly' avoids mentioning that he's mentioned him in print and online. He even wrote an ebook about him, 'Aftermath of the Highgate Vampire' (2007), which was subsequently plagiarised into 'In the shadow of the Highgate vampire' blog - whose title, in turn, rips-off the name of Dave's autobiography.
• A Facebook user December 7, 2011
  Hi Timey, I've looked back at the first few posts. In the first post David Farrant simply explains his side of things and clarifies a few points made in the original article. He doesn't attack Manchester until the very end when he called him a "maniac". Anthony then comes on board and doesn't mention Manchester at all. He is not overly sympathetic towards David, who then has a go at Hogg in his next post. If anything these first exchanges are between David and Anthony, with Manchester a side issue. I totally agree that there should be a voice representing Manchester on here, but given that "Nobody is authorised to speak on the Bishop's behalf" and that the "Bishop has dusted his sandals of David Farrant" I find it weird that so much of Vapirologist/Time_Traveller's comments are aimed at David. As I said before, the correct thing to do is to "Turn the Other Cheek". See Matthew 5:38-42 for guidance on how to behave.
• Timelord December 7, 2011
  Agreed Time Traveller. Some years ago I got hold of an interview with Farrant, who I was unfamiliar with at the time other than viewing a poorly made video CD where he goes on about "the vampire still existing" which he later claims was a joke, despite it being said in the same tone as the rest of the poorly made film. Instead of hearing anything about the case in this radio interview, it was 2 hours of constant diatribes and libels about Bishop Manchester and nothing else. Farrant is a charlatan, nothing more, nothing less.
• Timelord December 7, 2011
  Jamie wrote, "All you need to deal with this bloke is to know that everything he does or says is designed to cause the maximum distress to others. So the best bet is to do what I do, treat him with disdain and amusement, he's not worth getting wound up about, good luck anyhow!" - sounds like you are describing your father there. Ask him about Catherine.
• Time_Traveller December 7, 2011
  Paul Harris ("Alex Berger") says: "What amazes me is that little ever changes. I used to be a member of one of David's earliest websites back in about 2004, and the same arguments would abound then." Why does it "amaze" him? Farrant has been pursuing his vendetta against Seán Manchester since 1970. I would ask anyone with a real interest in the facts to acknowledge the initiator of these unseemly internet squabbles. The very first post on this blog's thread came from David Farrant on 8 October 2011. It is somewhat garullous. Farrant attacks Seán Manchester at length throughout his very first post. This was followed by a post from Anthony Hogg which laid the way clear for yet more abuse against Seán Manchester from Farrant who continued in that vein with or without provocation. There was no balancing comment from anyone until 26 October 2011 when The Vampirologist made his comments rebutting some of what had been said by Hogg in a considered way and avoiding reference to Farrant as much as possible. At that stage it was just three people arguing between them. Farrant predictably brought his son and cronies into the scrap (never wanting to fight his own battles) to inflame matters and make them worse. And that is how we have arrived at the present sorry state of affairs where it is impossible to successfully discuss the topic at hand without the asininity of Farrant's clique eclipsing any discussion being attempted. Thus everything quickly descends to a kindergarten level. But who actually started abusing, attacking and vilyfying whom? Go to the beginning of this thread for your answer. Anthony Hogg will use his twisted form of logic to argue that people like The Vampirologist, myself and others should not have come here in defence of Seán Manchester, but is it really fair that only one side has a voice because that is what will be the case if Hogg had his way? The solution, of course, would be if Farrant was able to comment without ranting on about Seán Manchester and starting yet another flame war, but he just can't do it. Just about every interview he gives comprises of him going on and on about Seán Manchester in the most derogatory manner possible. Meanwhile, Seán Manchester himself has not mentioned David Farrant once in any television, radio or recorded interview he has given since his debut on British television on 13 March 1970.
• Time_Traveller December 7, 2011
  Hoggs says: "As to my friends, I've already explained why I'm friends with them - but you've yet to explain how I can be friends with Timey, if your 'theory' holds true." Timelord is not listed on any of the social network sites where Hogg has accumulated innumerable friends in common with Farrant. This includes both Facebook accounts held by Hogg. Timelord is not among any of Hogg's friends. Farrant says: "Seán Manchester's boasts to have 'thousands of followers', is just one big sham." It is not claimed by Seán Manchester, it was stated by me with the example that his Facebook account has over 5,000 friends and has over-reached the maximum allowed. I did not use the term "followers." Some on here are confusing the words "friends" and "followers." I invite anyone to take a look at Farrant's Facebook friends. They are people, by and large, who have approached him as a Facebook friend on the mistaken premise that he believes in vampires and engaged in the pursuit of the Highgate Vampire. Many of them are very young and into witchcraft, a perfect example of ignorance not being bliss. Farrant over recent years has claimed "374 members" for his British Psychic and Occult Society and, lo and behold, "374 members" for his Highgate Vampire Society whose head of the "junior department" is John Pope. However, when either of these two societies appear at the head of a Facebook group, forum or blog, courtesy of Farrant, the "374 members" of each are sadly reluctant to manifest and all we find is the predictable sprinkling of what you would expect, ie random people who belong to neither "society" whose total is a small fraction of the "374" we keep hearing about. Farrant has an obsession with certain numbers, and 374 obviously fits the bill fo some reason. For many years in the 1970s he gave his age as "thirty-three" to the press. He did so when he was twenty-eight and was still doing so ten years later. Only Farrant knows why, but at least he is not persisting with the claim now he is double that age.
• anthonyhogg December 6, 2011
  I'm loving that hysterical blog entry about myself - which, as you probably know, Jason - is revised every so often. Here's a few more chestnuts: 'Mr Hogg allows himself so easily to be drawn into doing precisely what Mr Farrant wants, ie violating Bishop Manchester', ewwww! 'There is something deeply disturbing about Anthony Hogg who is patently a stalker with malicious intent and clearly someone with deep issues, possibly a narcissitic personality disorder, ie an inflated sense of self-importance, need for admiration, extreme self-involvement, and lack of empathy for others.' Apparently, I'm Hannibal Lecter. Ironically, that 'narcissitic' thing is a 'diagnosis' I gave them. They even swiped the link I gave, to prove my case. '...but is also too stupid to resist Mr Farrant's machinations despite being the subject of ridicule in comics distributed by the latter', says the writer of a blog entry who's grafted a pig's head onto a terrorist's body, with Dave in the background, some bats flitting about and a mad monk in the corner. Classic.
• anthonyhogg December 6, 2011
  As a side note, I've asked Mr. Pope about this 'kiddly fiddler' business, and here's what he had to say: 'in1970s, I was arrested for trying to convert a cathlic boy to witchcraft, indicent conduct. This chap black well was reported to police by my dad for thetting my step mum, instead of that Police discovered im jewish and took the Kahbalah,international order of as satanism, and claimed id performed a ritual under a bridge and iniated him, sex entered it later in alater trieland was through out, and i was found guilty as charged with witchcraft stuff. David farrent was present at the court, and sent the Police officers voodoo dolls, I let a spirit out of a bottle that flew in its bird shape round room settled on head one police officer and Judge.Its all Jews Rubbish, its mad manchester stuff.'
• anthonyhogg December 6, 2011
  Jason, cheers for that link. I got a good laugh out of it. The 'rendering' proves what I mean about the sides echoing each other. And you can't help but get a kick out of this: 'Mr Hogg should refrain from publishing on the internet addresses of those he attacks; especially as he would be the first to raise the roof if his own address was published', considering you can find addresses scattered throughout that same blog. Incidentally - but you probably knew this already - they *did* publish my home address on there a while ago. At least, what they *thought* was my home address. It was actually a petrol station's. Eejits.
• WilliamLaw December 6, 2011
  Jason what do you think of this? I tell you something, this is about as scary as that 'vampire' got. I still don't understand about the aliens, I'm sure people get crazier every year. http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Highgate-Vampire-Original-Book-Illustration-B-Cummings-/280782870779?pt=UK_art_drawings_GL&hash=item415ff698fb
• WilliamLaw December 6, 2011
  Jason what do you think of this? I tell you something, this is about as scary as that 'vampire' got. I still don't understand about the aliens, I'm sure people get crazier every year. http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Highgate-Vampire-Original-Book-Illustration-B-Cummings-/280782870779?pt=UK_art_drawings_GL&hash=item415ff698fb
• WilliamLaw December 6, 2011
  Also I seen that bingo, Jason, very funny. I'm going to start from now and give you a head start.
• Neighbours_Son December 6, 2011
  I am chuffed to bits you are not dead Mr. Law. Jason.
• WilliamLaw December 6, 2011
  Hello Jason, Yes I am still here although my PC has been playing up still and I'm not happy to read people declaring me dead just because I've not been on here for a bit if that's what they mean (yes YOU Hoggy). I'm not going to look at Bonky's Hoggy comic incase I get Hoggy staring at me for two days like what happened with Farrant and his green face. But I've got a joke for you. You remember when you found out Father Christmas wasn't real and cried for days? Well it turns out you were right, he IS real. And judging by this old song (they've got the Christmas music playing in Lidls now) Santa may even be posting on this message board..."You better watch out, You better not cry, Better not pout I'm telling you why, Santa Claus is coming to town. He's making a list, And checking it twice; Gonna find out Who's naughty and nice, Santa Claus is coming to town. He sees you when you're sleeping, He knows when you're awake, He knows if you've been bad or good, So be good for goodness sake!" Mr Law
• Neighbours_Son December 6, 2011
  I think this whole thing is a wind up. Bishop bonkers is making his own Hoggy comics..................http://friendsofbishopseanmanchester.blogspot.com/2010/10/anthony-hogg.html
• anthonyhogg December 6, 2011
  David, cheers for that explanation, re: treaties. I am still curious as to why you'd engage in a treaty with him, at all, especially as one point you mentioned ending 'hostilities'. On the surface, it appears the treaties were also designed to 'gag order' the other. Would that be a fair assessment? Alex, firstly, welcome aboard. 'Hello Jamie, The Christian thing for Sean to do would have been to "Turn the Other Cheek", but I guess if you've spent half your life chasing blood-sucking vampires that's hard to do! It's amazing how much he has got to say about a man he has "dusted his sandals" of.' Indeed, and that's been my point. There's only so much hot air that can be wasted on an issue, when the man, himself (officially, at least), advocates ignoring his enemies and/or praying for their souls. Jamie, 'the thing about Sean is despite all his holier than thou rhetoric he wouldn't know a christian attitude if it bashed him on the birreta. He slanders, lies and plagiarises his way through life, all the while protesting that everyones against him', well said. On the money. It's funny how much of an arch 'conspiracy' is made of things, when he's really the master of his own demise. Trav, 'hey will only carry out their personal attacks from behind the safety of their computers, believing themselves to be anonymous and undiscoverable', Ironic, hey? 'Wrong. "Alex Berger" is Paul Harris, and his precise whereabouts is known', nice of you to play the stalker card again. Still waiting on your evidence, re: Gareth Davies. As to Paul Harris...Alex, is that true? Because I remember a Paul Harris from way back...
• A Facebook user December 6, 2011
  Well done young sir!
• Neighbours_Son December 6, 2011
  Hey look what I found! http://bishopbonkers.blogspot.com/p/highgate-vampire-bingo.html I already got 2 bingos!
• A Facebook user December 6, 2011
  ..". They will only carry out their personal attacks from behind the safety of their computers, believing themselves to be anonymous and undiscoverable.".....ha ha ha, Sean hiding behind the latest in a long list of usernames makes yet another completely hypocritical statement. How funny!
• A Facebook user December 6, 2011
  Hi again Alex. Long time no hear from. How are you? Dear old Sean seems to be very confused: on the one hand, he says I have no followers; while on the other, he creates hate Blogs naming them (35 at the last count) and 'spitting venom'! He's only half right - in one way . . . I do not WANT any followers, but I certainly have quite a few friends as evidenced by Sean's own observations! Sean's boasts to have 'thousands of followers', is just one big sham. He has hardly any, and the ones he proclaims are really only Sean, inventing aliases then writing about himself! 'Time Travel' being the current example here. Give it a rest Seanie, for God's sake. Everybody knows these invented mouthpieces singing your own praises are really yourself! David Farrant, President, BPOS
• A Facebook user December 6, 2011
  David has a legion of supporters Sean. There are about 374 members of BPOS alone. I wasn't "Attacking" Sarah I was SYMPATHISING with her. Try reading what I say before having a go! PS - Time Traveller is Sean [Patrick] Manchester, and his exact whereabouts is also known - hehehe.
• A Facebook user December 6, 2011
  One of the things I used to do when a new website covered the Highagate "Vampire" was to play Highgate "Vampire" bingo. You place the following oft used and well-worn words or phrases into a five by five grid and see how long it takes you to get a line, four corners Etc .... You can use your own list but here are my suggestions: [Top row] Bandwagoneer, Unclean Sheets, Bungalow, Hair Dye, Talcum Powder. [Second Row] Cabal, Cuckold, Convicted Felon, Bedsitting Room, Bogus. [Middle Row] Ofcom, Biretta, VAMPIRE, Dickipoggy, Retreat House. [Fourth Row] Coal cellar, Ice-Cream van, Neo-gothic, Milkman, Shimmering Light. [Botton Row] Net-curtains, Calumny, Charlatan, Axe to Grind, John Pope Hours of fun for all the family .....
• Time_Traveller December 6, 2011
  "The number of supporters"? Where are they exactly? Certainly not on this blog, and certainly not anywhere else, least of all in Farrant's non-existent occult (BPOS) and vampire (HVS) societies. "Alex Berger," like his mentor, always goes for the softest target he can find, ie a completely innocent third party who has never met Farrant or any of the rest of the weasels who sniff his trail of deception. She has never been embroiled in any of this nonsense, so why mention a female who is totally unconnected? The answer is that these people comprising Farrant's tiny clique are fundamentally cowards. They will only carry out their personal attacks from behind the safety of their computers, believing themselves to be anonymous and undiscoverable. Wrong. "Alex Berger" is Paul Harris, and his precise whereabouts is known. These despicable deviants can try to hide all they like behind this or that facade, but their true identity is known.
• Neighbours_Son December 6, 2011
  Mr. Law, are you there?
• A Facebook user December 6, 2011
  Jamie, what amazes me is that little ever changes. I used to be a member of one of David's earliest websites back in about 2004, and the same arguments would abound then. The big difference is the number of supporters David has these days - he goes from strength to strength and good luck to him I say. The person I feel sorry for is Sarah. While she is ironing his cassock and "putting the freshness back" into his biretta her husband is typing his fingers to the bone desperately trying to score points and keep his "vampire" theory alive. Problem is we're not as dumb as he looks and he was well and truly rumbled by Patsy in her best selling casebook.
• A Facebook user December 6, 2011
  Sean writes..". Nowadays his eldest son sticks posters of cartoons of Bishop Manchester in pubs around Southampton"......I feel I have to protest in the strongest possible terms, for a start they're not cartoons, they're actually all the same photograph of you tooting on a saxophone, which I've captioned .."if he blows any harder he's sure to poo himself"! Also they're not just in Southampton, I've put up a couple in Winchester and Eastleigh as well. And this is the bit you'll find really interesting, I'm going to be staying in Christchurch with friends in a couple of weeks so I'll make sure to put some there as well. I'd hate for anybody to miss out after all :-))
• A Facebook user December 6, 2011
  For Alex, hi, glad to meet you, the thing about Sean is despite all his holier than thou rhetoric he wouldn't know a christian attitude if it bashed him on the birreta. He slanders, lies and plagiarises his way through life, all the while protesting that everyones against him. All you need to deal with this bloke is to know that everything he does or says is designed to cause the maximum distress to others. So the best bet is to do what I do, treat him with disdain and amusement, he's not worth getting wound up about, good luck anyhow!
• A Facebook user December 6, 2011
  Hello Jamie, The Christian thing for Sean to do would have been to "Turn the Other Cheek", but I guess if you've spent half your life chasing blood-sucking vampires that's hard to do! It's amazing how much he has got to say about a man he has "dusted his sandals" of. Just imagine the unbridled fury we would have to face if the bishop's footwear was still soiled.
• A Facebook user December 6, 2011
  Sean.... "Why would a self-proclaimed "Christian" be uttering such profanity in the first place, much less be describing a bishop in this disgraceful and utterly unacceptable way? "... maybe its because you went running crying to yet more moderaters (on fb this time) to get stuff about you removed. This was at the same time you were rifling peoples fb accounts and posting up their pictures under the user name 'Arminous Vambery' on your hateblog 'In the Shadow of The Highgate Vampire' Each picture came with it's own individual character assassination and some had been photoshopped to make the victims look as bad as possible, it can be found here....: http://r1rk9np7bpcsfoeekl0khkd2juj27q3o-a-fc-opensocial.googleusercontent.com/ps/ifr?container=friendconnect&mid=0&nocache=0&view=profile&parent=http%3A%2F%2Fthehighgatevampire.blogspot.com%2F&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Ffriendconnect%2Fgadgets%2Fmembers.xml&communityId=09844464071860199214&caller=http%3A%2F%2Fthehighgatevampire.blogspot.com%2F2009%2F02%2Feighteen.html&rpctoken=476292952&locale=en_GB. ...... And less of the righteous indignation Sean, just take a read back through your posts on here and look at some of the insults you've been dishing out. Oh and by the way, you're still not a bishop so why not stop pretending you are!
• A Facebook user December 6, 2011
  Anthony, I think we should be very clear about the matter of the two Treaties: Mr Manchester approached myself with the idea, it was NOT the other way around. His first approach was in 1981, and he turned up at my flat one day (15th July, his birthday in fact) with a handwritten Treaty which he had written himself, which had a wax seal on it and spaces for our two signatures. The second Treaty was along the same lines, i.e. Mr Manchester again approached myself with a type written 'Treaty' (manifesto) which we both signed accordingly. The date of this Treaty was 13th December 1992. I am quite sure that I also published this second Treaty on SNW. I have already explained how Mr Manchester broke the first Treaty - indeed, you have reiterated this in your post. After the second Treaty was signed, Mr Manchester continued to visit me regularly at my flat - indeed, as he did after the signing of the first Treaty in 1981. It was during this long period of 'peace' that I made many secret recordings of his visits until, I believe, sometime in 1986. I am in possession of all these tapes and indeed, transcripts of some of them have been published in my book The Seangate Tapes. The reason for the failure of the second Treaty (as I have already explained elsewhere) was that in 1991, I brought out my book Beyond the Highgate Vampire, which gave all the true facts of the events at Highgate Cemetery in which I was involved. Mr Manchester took exception to the fact that I had included 2 photographs in this; one of which showed Mr Manchester peering through a window at my premises; the other (which ironically Mr Manchester had given me himself and asked me to send to Jean-Paul Bourre for publication in France) showed one Anthony Hill trespassing in the catacombs of Kensal Green Cemetery one night and holding up a freshly interred skeleton. As a matter of interest, Mr Manchester was present, and it could well have been himself who took this photograph. Mr Manchester made many such visits to the catacombs in Kensal Green Cemetery: indeed, I have him on tape admitting this to myself in private, and telling me 'never to say anything'. I refused to remove the two photographs, or amend a reference in the text that referred to him (Mr Manchester) prefaced by the words "self-styled" . The actual sentence read ..."a mischievous publicity seeker and a self-styled "Lord" who also claimed to be a direct descendent of the poet Byron". Things deteriorated rapidly after this, and were not helped by the fact when in 1991 following the release of Beyond the Highgate Vampire and a review in the Fortean Times, Mr Manchester began writing to that magazine using the alias of "Robin Crisp", who had sent them screeds of material all of which maligned myself. He was still continuing to visit me after the signing of the second Treaty but lying about the fact that he was Robin Crisp, so things deteriorated slowly from that period and resulted in the failure of that Treaty circa late 1996 which was when he started writing the 'M.A.D.' letters, one of which I have already published on SNW which you can refer to. David Farrant
• A Facebook user December 6, 2011
  Hi Folks, I am the President of OBOPVROS (The Official British Old Psychic Vampire Research and Occult Society) Founded AD 916. I am Cardinal of Stone Henge and am, quite simply, astonishingly reverend. I am professor of "Tit for Tat" at the Univesity of Hard Knocks and I avoid Ice Cream vans at all costs. Hope all is clear, In Her service, +++ Berger.
• A Facebook user December 6, 2011
  Testing
• anthonyhogg December 6, 2011
  As to your comments on the Bradish stuff, Trav: hearsay.
• anthonyhogg December 6, 2011
  Trav, look, I've already acknowledged the 'lowlife' comments - which you take to heart, for some reason (yet are more than happy to direct at others) - weren't appropriate on my behalf. As to my friends, I've already explained why I'm friends with them - but you've yet to explain how I can be friends with Timey, if your 'theory' holds true. As to 'stifling' Manchester's supporters...I'm actually sharing their idol's 'teachings' on the matter. His advice for dealing with that chap and his associates. Why is it that folk so keen to 'defend' Manchester - by heaping on calumny of their own - consistently ignore that piece of 'advice'? Why is it that they can go for David's throat - under the pretext of 'exposing the truth' - but not their own exalted leader's, a man who freely admits to engaging in occult and criminal activity? A man's who's writings are substantially revisionist in their own right. A man who complains about copyright violation, yet commits the act, repeatedly, himself, to the point where even his British Old Catholic Church page is plagiarised? No acknowledgment from you or his supporters about that, yet the facts are clear. Instead, it's clear your side has a vendetta of its own - one you accuse Dave's side of engaging in. This is a feud, and the more folk participate in it, the more they become what they're criticising. What is the 'end game'? Who knows. Perhaps you should focus on reuniting the side, rather than trying to claim a moral highground you don't have rights to.
• anthonyhogg December 6, 2011
  David, I had a look at SNW and found the treaties you mentioned there. Here's your explanation for one of them (I believe I've asked *how many* were made): 'Basically, on July 15th 1981 (coincidentally perhaps, Manchester's birthday) we both signed a Peace Treaty to end the hostilities. Without going into too many details at the moment, that Treaty 'fell apart' in or around 1985 due to what I considered to be an act of treachery on Mr Manchester's part. I say no more than that at the moment, other than to say I was trying to get a malicious comment made by the Finchley Press retracted which went back before the Treaty's actual signing. This was an ongoing thing and I was preparing to take that newspaper to court if they refused to retract their comments which had been sent to them by Mr Manchester himself. He (Mr Manchester) considered this to be a breach of the Treaty's conditions not withstanding that this was against that newspaper itself and the legal process could not be suddenly stopped. In 1985 (I believe) the Finchley Press indeed printed a retraction which amounted to an apology for Mr Manchester's given statements (which incidentally concerned their coverage of my libel action against the Daily Express in 1980).' That, of course, only addresses one of the treaties. Then the question for this is, if you were aware - at a fairly early time - that Manchester was a fraud...then why did you broker a treaty with him? Would this have anything to do with the MAD agreement?
• Time_Traveller December 6, 2011
  Farrant says: "If you remember, a main reason for this finding of the Court was that when Seán Manchester was asked why he made them by the defence solicitor, he replied under oath that it could not have been him as he did not know Mrs Bradish’s telephone number because it was ex-directory." Yesterday I posted this statement which Farrant apparently is quite incapable of understanding: "Bishop Manchester was later informed by Anthony Hill (in whose cellar Farrant resided from August 1969 until August 1970) that John and Gillian Bradish’s telephone number was ex-directory. Hill was acquainted with this couple and had spoken to them on various occasions in pubs. Bishop Manchester most definitely had not." That is how Seán Manchester was aware that the telephone number was ex-directory, but, of course, Hill was not in court whereas Farrant was in the public gallery grinning inanely, according to those present. What put the grin on Farrant's parrot-like features? A couple of years earlier John Bradish had made advances to Mary Farrant in Farrant's Archway flat. She told her husband and he began a hate campaign against Bradish which largely comprised of stickers and small posters appearing in pubs with childish cartoons of Bradish with accompanying abuse were issued by something Farrant called the "Bradish Defamation League." Those who also drank in these pubs, which included the Prince of Wales, were aware of Farrant's hate campaign, but he denied he was behind it to Bradish himself. Nowadays his eldest son sticks posters of cartoons of Bishop Manchester in pubs around Southampton. Nothing has really changed over four decades! For some reason, Bradish had a soft spot for Farrant and was upset by Farrant claiming to have begun to embroil himself in the occult in the late summer of 1970. He paid his bail and whisked him off to Barnet where Farrant became a lodger with the Bradishes, which was a condition for his bail being granted. He was also found employment as a porter at nearby Barnet General Hospital, which was another bail condition. It was while ensconced in the Bradish household that Farrant determined how he would get his revenge on both John Bradish and Seán Manchester who had refused to support Farrant's publicity-seeking shenanigans, as confirmed in prison correspondence from Farrant to Seán Manchester in August 1970 and the latters subsequent resistance to what was being asked of him. For Farrant the feud began when he could not elicit Seán Manchester's approval and was shunned by the British Occult Society who wanted absolutely nothing to do with him. For Seán Manchester the feud began when Farrant made the black magic telephone calls to the Bradish household and temporarily convinced them the caller was Seán Manchester, resulting in John Bradish being found guilty of an assault on the person of Seán Manchester and the latter, of course, being assaulted. This is where all the hostility has its origin, and, as far as Farrant is concerned, it has never ceased despite Bishop Seán Manchester having made numerous offers to reconcile their differences privately and amicably in the past.
• Time_Traveller December 6, 2011
  Hogg says: "'Bishop Manchester is referred to by Hogg as "Manny," "Manchester," "a despot" or "a fuckin' lowlife."' The latter two, as pointed out, were uttered during certain circumstances. It's not something I say regularly." Once is a bad enough. Why would a self-proclaimed "Christian" be uttering such profanity in the first place, much less be describing a bishop in this disgraceful and utterly unacceptable way? And what circumstances allow for such appalling descriptions? Hogg then adds: "Yet, you haven't refuted them." Hogg's logic is that if I don't refute his disgusting descriptions of the bishop I must therefore agree with them! This is about as ridiculous a thing I have ever heard. Apart from the Farrant clique (of which I am obviously not one) who else would use such abusive and defamatory language to describe Bishop Manchester? What is interesting is that Hogg makes these detestable references to Bishop Manchester and describes what those sympathetic to him say in his defence as bilge, but where does he describe Farrant and his clique of ne'er-do-wells in a similar manner? He doesn't, which is why his claim of impartiality is bogus. As I have said before, you only have to look at Hogg's terms of reference to see where he is coming from. He has never referred to Farrant as a "lowlife," much less "a fuckin' lowlife." He has never referred to Farrant as "a despot." In fact, he refers to Farrant as "David" and "Dave" while the bishop, as well as the aforementioned derisory descriptions using obscenity, is invariably "Manny" and "Manchester." He cultivates friends from the Farrant clique at an alarming rate. He belongs to an internet group with a Farrant supporter as co-administrator. Many of Farrant's friends, even though there are not that many, are Facebook friends of Hogg, including Farrant's eldest son who curiously addresses his father constantly as "David." A little respect for his elders wouldn't go amiss. Clearly his formative years lacked the essential discipline required to instill that respect so woefully absent. Hogg's coup de grace is always the reference to Bishop Manchester's personal preference that people ignore David Farrant. He has used this to try and stifle the views of those who agree with the bishop on forums and blogs like this one where Bishop Manchester is being misrepresented by those who really are lowlifes. In other words, Anthony Hogg would rather have just one side voice its opinion all the time, and we all know which side that is because we never hear him telling any of them to stop posting their personal attacks on the bishop.
• A Facebook user December 6, 2011
  "Now, about those treaties. Why did you enter a treaty with Manchester and what were the conditions agreed upon? When did it break?" [Anthony Hogg] Yet another repeat question, that I have already answered on SNW. I published up copies of BOTH Treaties there, along with dates and 'Terms and Conditions'. Suggest you go back and read them. David Farrant. PS if you want further details, I also suggest that you ask Sean who is now attempting to assert the Treaties weren't valid - even though he signed both of them. Also sent me voluminous correspondence about these Treaties which he also signed. I have not published any of these missives . . . yet! But they are all on Society files.
• A Facebook user December 5, 2011
  Timelord isn't Manchester. You know that, especially as Brendan confirmed it on SNW. He's a Manchester sympathiser, sure, but that doesn't make him Manchester anymore than it makes you Gareth. As much as I disagree with his sympathies, he's entitled to 'em, as your 'fans' are to your views. Now, about those treaties. Why did you enter a treaty with Manchester and what were the conditions agreed upon? When did it break?
• A Facebook user December 5, 2011
  Having skimmed through the multifarious ravings about myself here I am amazed – if not incredulous – about the effect that I have appear to have on some people. I am talking about yourself mainly, Seanie: now switching to yet another alias and writing about yourself under the invented name of “Time Traveller”, ditto “Timelord” who appears to have young children and paedophiles on the brain. But these are not really my problems, rather ones of self-projection which I can only advise requires some kind of professional guidance. As to me making ‘black magic’ telephone calls to Mr and Mrs Bradish at their North London home while I was staying there as a condition of my bail after Mr Bradish had kindly stood security for me while my Highgate vampire case was pending…you really have reverted to some new level of insanity here Sean ... especially as it was yourself who got found guilty of making these threatening calls to Mrs Bradish. If you remember, a main reason for this finding of the Court was that when you were asked why you made them by the defence solicitor, you replied under oath that it could not have been you as you did not know Mrs Bradish’s telephone number because it was ex-directory. Its about as insane as the statements you make calling yourself a bona fide bishop! Try and grow up, there’s still time yet, even though you are fast approaching 70!
• anthonyhogg December 5, 2011
  Jamie, 'You really are your own worst enemy sometimes', yes, exactly Sean - or his, uh, 'supporters' - do tend to put people right off him. They don't seem to grasp that by voraciously defending him...with faulty logic and attacks...they're actually taking on a representative role, in a sense, and turning the man into a target. But what's even more amusing, is that for all their 'defending', they can't bring themselves to actually *listen* to the man when he says, ''I prefer to deny him the oxygen of publicity where I am concerned and ask others to do the same. So my advice to those who feel enraged by his behaviour and personally want to confront him is to remember he is still one of God's creatures and to pray for him. Pray for his state of mind and endangered soul. If you are unable to do that, just ignore him.' Oh, if only they had Sean's 'compassion'! Rather than starve David of publicity-seeking oxygen, they keep pumping it back into him.
• anthonyhogg December 5, 2011
  Trav, 'What I am doing is offering an opinion based on intelligent information and first-hand sources.' Copy and pasting from biased sources is not 'offering an opinion based on intelligent information', etc. The logic you're using here - 'first-hand sources' - is incredibly weak, seeing as David, too, is a 'first-hand source', yet you reserve criticism for him, but not Manchester. 'I am not holding the bishop up as a "paradigm." I am showing him to be someone who has been at the receiving end of a malicious hate campaign here on this blog (which malice was started by Farrant) and elsewhere, and who has always been consistent in his account of the happenings at Highgate Cemetery (the topic of this thread) which I certainly do not believe is "full of holes."' If you don't think it's full of holes, then clearly you haven't read much of his his material. Compare the various revisions - right down to dialogue changes - in the first and second edition of 'The Highgate vampire', for instance, and you'll see that. But I'm sure you're aware of it, already. Not to mention his hypocrisy on other matters. For instance, he - and his lackeys, the FoBSM, VRS, etc. - like to complain of their copyright being violated...yet say nothing when Manchester frequently violates copyright through plagiarism. To them, what's good for the goose *isn't* good for the gander. 'What neither I nor the bishop have done is distribute malicious, hate-filled material to spouses, family, friends and acquaintances of David Farrant whereas Farrant has gone to extraordinary lengths to discover the private addresses of people known to the bishop to send them his poisonous material about someone they consider a close friend, including the bishop's in-laws and colleagues.' What neither of you have done? Well, we don't even know who you are, do we Trav, so how do we even begin to verify that... 'Where is there anything comparable to that? Neither I nor Bishop Manchester "distribute" hateful material to anyone.' I suggest you re-read your comments here, then. Distribution, incidentally, includes blog-writing. The FoBSM blog - which Manny is certainly aware of - is one of the most hate-filled things I've ever seen with this thing. 'Hogg cannot quite comprehend this because he has his own fixed, albeit erroneous, mindset about Farrant and the bishop' now here you're parroting David. Do tell, exactly what is my own 'fixed, albeit erroneous, mindset' about them two? 'He lives on the other side of the world and has never visited these shores where it all happened', so? 'Most of all, he wasn't even alive when this history was unravelling.' Ah, that old chestnut. My being around at the time - or not - has no relevance, otherwise 'history' is a redundant subject for everyone. I'm greatly amused by both Manny's side and David using this 'criticism' against me, because it's certainly not one they use on their supporters.
• anthonyhogg December 5, 2011
  Trav, 'All I did was reveal why that really doesn't matter', then why bother? What's the point of regurgitating the material, then? 'I am not "hung-up" on anything; just demonstrating what people generally feel about the "two sides," as shown by the massive support Bishop Seán Manchester receives from all over the world', what you did was mention how many Facebook friends he's got. That doesn't vindicate him. Dodgy-ass 'psychic', Sylvia Browne, has a lotta fans too, doesn't make her legit. 'Accusations against the bishop regarding "criminality" are libellous, but then they are uttered from the safety of Melbourne in Australia by someone who won't even allow the world to glimpse what he really looks like; someone who hides behind, of all things, a devil's mask!' It's not a devil's mask, but a vampire mask. And they're not libellous if - as I've said multiple times - they're confirmed by Manchester, himself. 'My source regarding the Bradishes is not Bishop Manchester alone. I have heard it from the people who really matter', and these people are....? 'I have also heard testimony that Farrant was bragging about having made the black magic telephone calls on the evening of the court case in the Prince of Wales pub from those who heard his boasts', which is merely an echo of Manchester's claims. 'I require absolutely no convincing about who is in the right and who is in the wrong' ... obviously, even if you're wrong in doing so ... 'and my criticism of Farrant's eldest son is not remotely "disgusting."' Actually, it is. Face it: Jamie wouldn't be involved in this thing, if you lunkheads hadn't drawn him into it. 'Farrant we find referred to by Hogg as "David." How sweet.' I also call him 'Dave'. 'Bishop Manchester is referred to by Hogg as "Manny," "Manchester," "a despot" or "a fuckin' lowlife."' The latter two, as pointed out, were uttered during certain circumstances. It's not something I say regularly. Yet, you haven't refuted them. Interesting... 'The devil, as always, is in the detail. When Hogg loses it, he invariably reveals where his allegiance lies and it is not with any Christians who support Bishop Manchester' ... funny thing is, I haven't seen many Christians support Manchester, either. If they did, they should be made aware of his double standards, misrepresentation, plagiaristic habits and occultic background ... 'but with the clique of malicious ne'er-do-wells who collude to prolong a hate campaign now fast approaching its fifth decade. Hogg is fuelling the campaign as much as anyone else by obsessively trying to rekindle interest in it on the internet.' It's amazing how much you parrot what the FoBSM has written about me. My allegiance is to finding the truth. As I said before, sometimes I think Dave's right; sometimes I think Manny's right - but neither of them are totally right about this thing. Like I said, David's not the devil and Manchester's no angel.
• A Facebook user December 5, 2011
  Yet another DMCA then Sean, trouble is (for you) everyones seen the picture already, much like the one of you in your nazi uniform that you've also tried to bury. Why not just start wearing jeans and t-shirts like normal people, (I hear David has a line you might be interested in) or at least have the sense not to be photographed :-)) As for where I get my information from you might have noticed the links I put up here. That's what's known in the trade as evidence. All your threats of libel action and your DMCA takedown attempts just serve to point that out. Now people are wondering exactly what you're trying to hide. You really are your own worst enemy sometimes. I see you've done the usual 'lets turn it onto David' yet again. The thing is, unlike you he's never denied his occult past so sorry, no cigar there either! Nice try though. .....one thing I do apologise for though is calling your residence a semi.... silly me, who ever heard of a semi detatched bungalow...sorry, won't happen again! I'd just like to say I'm gonna miss our little chats, I always looked forward to your sparkling banter and witty repartee, oh yeah and your apoplectic homophobic rants! happy times.. oh well!
• Time_Traveller December 5, 2011
  There is no point addressing Bishop Manchester who certainly doesn't reside in a "semi." How curious is it that you cannot tell the truth about anything? Nor will you get a response from me about stolen images which Don Ecker and his American ISP have been legally served with a DMCA notice about for copyright infringement which so far they have ignored. I cannot see the link provided, but the pictures regarding this have been discussed and explained so many times it is just too tedious to continue repeating the answers to someone as deficient as yourself. I do not think that Hogg lives in Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. I know he does because that is where Hogg himself says he resides, and he has said so on the internet for anyone to know. It is therefore hardly a private address. Melbourne is a big place. I did not reveal his exact location, unlike Hogg who has revealed exact locations. No "hard core porn" has ever been sent to Patsy Langley's employers, least of all Bishop Manchester who has received hardcore pornography from Farrant's webmaster via email and reported the matter accordingly. This is why I normally don't bother to reply to such unadulterated bilge. If someone is claiming something of such a disgusting and serious nature, they should provide some convincing evidence. Otherwise just keep quiet because you are making yourself look every bit the moron you are. Let's face it, only a moron would accept what he is told by a man with a track record of trying to deceive the public; a man whom even the judiciary and media have dubbed a compulsive liar. What I find especially revealing is your apparent inablitiy to pass any comment or opinion on your father's claims regarding his alleged supernatural encounters, occult dabblings and witchcraft ceremonies. Why is that? Too hard to swallow? Does it stick in the gullet? Yet you are quick to pass judgement on other people's beliefs and experiences. Well, one person's beliefs and experiences in particular. Someone with whom you have developed a serious obsession almost as compulsive as your father's, but you've got some way to go before you are in his league. Bottom line? You're not worth the effort. You're a pale shadow of a non-entity who by any standards is a pathetic excuse of a man. For that reason I won't be bothering to address you any further and shouldn't have wasted my time on this occasion. I have much better things to do. You are summed up by the image you publish everywhere of yourself giving the "finger" to everyone. Obnoxious, vulgar and repulsive!
• A Facebook user December 5, 2011
  Hi Sean, David's empty headed son here :-)))) I see you're still convieniently ignoring my link to the photo of you holding an occult ceremony, well here it is again (just in case you missed it). http://darkmattersradio.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/SeanTheDevilWorshiper. Did you see it this time, I'll happily put it up again if you like. I've gotta say as well, love the way you claim David published your adress in one breath then tell everyone where (you think) Anthony lives in another. Particularly as you proudly tell the world about your south coast semi at every opportunity, such stunning hypocrisy hasn't been seen since, well, your last post on here. As for your '5000 facebook friends' really? Maybe it's time you got out a bit more, you know it's unhealthy sitting indoors all day behind a computer screen. It could lead to mental derangement and sociopathic tendencies.....ooops, too late :-)) Oh just one more thing, ...you said this on your last post "What neither I nor the bishop (sic) have done is distribute malicious, hate-filled material to spouses, family, friends and acquaintances of David Farrant".... just wondering, does this include the hard core porn you sent to Patsys' employers (amongst others). If there's any more little 'oversights' you need corrected please don't hesitate to ask, it's what I'm here for after all :-))
• Time_Traveller December 5, 2011
  Hogg says: "You're holding Manchester up as a paradigm of virtue by comparison. He isn't one, especially as his story's full of holes, too. If you criticise David for distributing such material - what exactly do you think *you're* doing?" What I am doing is offering an opinion based on intelligent information and first-hand sources. I am not holding the bishop up as a "paradigm." I am showing him to be someone who has been at the receiving end of a malicious hate campaign here on this blog (which malice was started by Farrant) and elsewhere, and who has always been consistent in his account of the happenings at Highgate Cemetery (the topic of this thread) which I certainly do not believe is "full of holes." What neither I nor the bishop have done is distribute malicious, hate-filled material to spouses, family, friends and acquaintances of David Farrant whereas Farrant has gone to extraordinary lengths to discover the private addresses of people known to the bishop to send them his poisonous material about someone they consider a close friend, including the bishop's in-laws and colleagues. Where is there anything comparable to that? Neither I nor Bishop Manchester "distribute" hateful material to anyone. Hogg cannot quite comprehend this because he has his own fixed, albeit erroneous, mindset about Farrant and the bishop. He is too close and yet too far from the subject matter which so obsesses him. He cannot see the wood for the trees. He lives on the other side of the world and has never visited these shores where it all happened. Most of all, he wasn't even alive when this history was unravelling. He comes to it as an observer across time, and we know how treacherous that can be when trying to determine the truth of incidents at best nebulous and at worst impossible to fathom.
• Time_Traveller December 5, 2011
  If things are said like "You don't seem to understand, that the more you malign David, the more people are compelled to seek out his side of the story," All I did was reveal why that really doesn't matter. I am not "hung-up" on anything; just demonstrating what people generally feel about the "two sides," as shown by the massive support Bishop Seán Manchester receives from all over the world. Accusations against the bishop regarding "criminality" are libellous, but then they are uttered from the safety of Melbourne in Australia by someone who won't even allow the world to glimpse what he really looks like; someone who hides behind, of all things, a devil's mask! My source regarding the Bradishes is not Bishop Manchester alone. I have heard it from the people who really matter. I have also heard testimony that Farrant was bragging about having made the black magic telephone calls on the evening of the court case in the Prince of Wales pub from those who heard his boasts. I require absolutely no convincing about who is in the right and who is in the wrong, and my criticism of Farrant's eldest son is not remotely "disgusting." Anthony Hogg's use of foul language against Bishop Manchester, however, is disgusting. Farrant we find referred to by Hogg as "David." How sweet. Bishop Manchester is referred to by Hogg as "Manny," "Manchester," "a despot" or "a fuckin' lowlife." The devil, as always, is in the detail. When Hogg loses it, he invariably reveals where his allegiance lies and it is not with any Christians who support Bishop Manchester, but with the clique of malicious ne'er-do-wells who collude to prolong a hate campaign now fast approaching its fifth decade. Hogg is fuelling the campaign as much as anyone else by obsessively trying to rekindle interest in it on the internet.
• anthonyhogg December 5, 2011
  Instead of passive-aggressively referring to me in the third person, you could ask. It seems you're again referring to my Facebook friends list, which you're particularly hung-up on. For some reason. But, more importantly, I've already explained this before. Certain of the friends on my list stem from my time on the SNW forum. We share a mutual interest in the case - even if we don't agree on all the points = friends. No conspiracy there. As to your disgusting criticisms of Jamie, you're deliberately overlooking the fact that he's also cited external material, therefore, he is not 'empty-headed', unlike the plagiarised comments you've provided here. As to Manchester not being convicted, sure, he hasn't. However, he *has* engaged in illegal activity - again, by his own admittance and inference from his writings. Just because he wasn't 'busted', doesn't make him any less of one. If you shoplift and get away with it, you're still a thief, after all. You've claimed that the Bradishes conceded that David was responsible, however, your source is hearsay from a biased source (Manchester). Again, the retractions were obviously just to point out that Manchester said he did not make the calls...as you'd expect a guilty party to do (your logic here). As to confirming this with Bradish...have you actually done so, yourself?
• Time_Traveller December 5, 2011
  Hogg says: "You wonder why people are drawn to David? It's not hard to work out, is it?" I never actually wondered that at all, but is that why Hogg is drawn to Farrant's coterie of calumny-spreaders? Even to the extent of being a friend (on the internet, at least) of Farrant's empty-headed son who just repeats and bleats his father's falsehoods. As to the Bradish business and sundry quips from Hogg, Bishop Manchester has been convicted of no crime whatsoever in his life. John Bradish was found guilty of assault which resulted in Seán Manchester receiving hundreds of pounds in criminal compensation from the Criminal Compensation Board. Most important of all is the fact that, some months after the court case, both John and Gillian Bradish accepted that the real culprit was David Farrant (who was killing two birds with one stone in order to get his revenge on Bradish and the bishop. Bradish for making advances against his wife a year or two earlier, and the bishop for refusing to become embroiled in Farrant's publicity stunts). Some newspapers, of course published an inaccurate and unbalanced report of the outcome of the court case for assault brought by Seán Manchester against John Bradish who was at the time a friend of David Farrant but not an acquaintance of Seán Manchester's. The Press Council upheld Seán Manchester's complaint and newspapers were obliged to publish statements offering balancing commentary. It is, however, regrettable that the deception upon John Bradish and his wife Gillian Bradish by David Farrant was not realised by this couple until well after the court case. Gillian Bradish was put on the spot by the prosecution when asked how she knew who made the telephone calls. She went along with what she had been previously told by Farrant. It was not until the following year she accepted she had been wrong, realising it was indeed Farrant who made the threatening black magic telephone calls. Sadly, Gillian Bradish had a history of being mentally unbalanced and later committed suicide. Should anyone want verification on what I have recorded above, I seriously suggest they contact John Bradish himself. Farrant was in the public gallery during this court case to enjoy the outcome of his black magic telephone threats, but it was the last time he would do so. The next time it was the world in the "public gallery" as he stood in the dock less than four years later to be sentenced to a term of imprisonment for crimes which included making black magic threats. Nothing really changes.
• anthonyhogg December 5, 2011
  Trav, 'And discover it to have more holes than a colander!' I agree with you. I've exposed many of those holes myself - the problem is, you're holding Manchester up as a paradigm of virtue by comparison. He isn't one, especially as his story's full of holes, too. If you criticise David for distributing such material - what exactly do you think *you're* doing? And for all that, you've avoided one key component of Manchester's 'teachings', in a blog entry titled 'My adversary', no less: 'I prefer to deny him the oxygen of publicity where I am concerned and ask others to do the same. So my advice to those who feel enraged by his behaviour and personally want to confront him is to remember he is still one of God's creatures and to pray for him. Pray for his state of mind and endangered soul. If you are unable to do that, just ignore him.' See: http://bishopseanmanchester.blogspot.com/2009/02/candlemas.html
• anthonyhogg December 5, 2011
  And for goodness sake, stop ripping off the content of other blogs! Provide a link.
• Time_Traveller December 5, 2011
  Hogg says: "You don't seem to understand, that the more you malign David, the more people are compelled to seek out his side of the story." And discover it to have more holes than a colander! How exactly does one "malign" a man who by his own admission threatened people, including a doctor's wife and an RSPCA inspector, with black magic death dolls? A man, moreover, who engages in disseminating malice every day of his life? A man who sends his pamphlets containing gross libel against Bishop Manchester to the bishop's wife, family and friends? A man convicted of crimes which include gross indecency, malicious vandalism, cemetery desecration, theft and possession of an illegal firearm? Absolutely, nobody need get caught in any crossfire. Those who involve themselves do so of their own volition. It is impossible to be unaware of all the unpleasantness swirling around in the aftermath of the Highgate Vampire case. People like Hogg obviously try to get involved decades after the events because he is obsessed and seems to like stalking those at either end of the controversy to the point of becoming thoroughly disliked by most of them. Yet the fact remains that while Hogg's vampire Facebook group has six members, the VRS group has approaching four hundred members and the Highgate Vampire group in support of Seán Manchester's account has a number not very much less. Hogg, Farrant and the rest who regularly attack Bishop Seán Manchester have very little Facebook support or friends. Meanwhile, the bishop's Facebook friends number more than five thousand; more, indeed, than the maximum allowable. Bishop Manchester's Facebook account is explicitly open about the Highgate Vampire case. Many ask to be his friend, including many clerics, because of his involvement in that case. He does not hide that from anyone. The people have overwhelmingly shown which "side of the story" they prefer and my posting a comment or two on this blog will make no difference whatsoever to that fact.
• anthonyhogg December 5, 2011
  Accessibility's the key, Trav. Perhaps they couldn't warm up to a dry, aloof Montague Summers wannabe with Byronic pretensions. Think of one of the main criticisms levelled at me, in context - that I'm 'humourless'. Now, think of you and think of Manchester. There's not much to warm up to there. But I think it's more than that. I think it's more than just personalities, I think - to them - they simply saw a better case in David's version of events. Kev's book, for instance, is a fairly convincing read. My only real criticism of it, is that it skims over Dave's misdeeds and doesn't go for his throat as it does for Manchester. But what it *does* show, is the dodginess of both sides concerned. So when either side tries to take a moral highground over the other, it's a like a sick joke. A sickness which keeps the feud in motion.
• anthonyhogg December 5, 2011
  Trav, 'What I do know is that Anthony Hogg is the person least acquainted with the facts on this blog', you're not in any kind of authority to make that claim, considering the majority of your posts are copied from elsewhere. So, you know nothing. 'Bishop Seán Manchester had never really been very accessible.' Indeed, even he has referred to his own 'aloofness'. So, there's no need to make a massive conspiracy out of why Rob and Kev turned against him. They may've simply warmed up to Dave who *was* more accessible. 'They wanted more that the bishop could offer, and they also wanted someone very much more anti-establishment, indeed someone criminal.' Well, as I've pointed out, the Bishop has engaged in criminal activity, himself, so that can't be the reason. As to being 'anti-establishment', the Bishop is a Romantic-obsessed traditionalist Catholic vampire hunter. How 'anti-establishment' do you wanna get? 'They found that person in David Farrant who provided more access to himself than anyone could stomach, which included his already decades-old hate campaign. Bingo!' Bingo indeed, and yet, you wonder why people are drawn to David? It's not hard to work out, is it. You just provided the answer.
• anthonyhogg December 5, 2011
  Taking me out of context, Trav. I prefixed that with 'by that logic...' The courts were certainly convinced that Manchester made those calls, or they wouldn't've let Bradish off, virtually scott-free. As to the retractions, let's look at what one *actually* said: 'We are asked to state that Mr. Manchester in evidence denied making the telephone call to Mrs. Bradish' (Daily Mirror, 26 November 1970, p. 2). That's merely a denial, not proof he was innocent. Yet, here was the *actual* outcome of the case: 'Bradish, of Manor Road, Barnet, was found "technically guilty" of assaulting Manchester on September 29, and was given an absolute discharge. Manchester was bound over to keep the peace for 12 months in the sum of £200 and warned not to telephone Mrs. Bradish' ('Showdown after 'black magic threat' court told, Daily Express, 5 November 1970, p. 5). In other words, it's pretty clear the court was convinced that Bradish was *provoked* into these actions by Manchester. The point is, if you raise the crimes of one against the other, expect it to bite back. As to Manchester not knowing Gillian - you criticised me for quoting Kev and Dave before. Yet, what's your source for that claim? A biased party! Hypocrite. As to the rest of your post, are you too thick to realise how obvious it is that you're just copy and pasting that from somewhere else, sans attribution? It's pathetic.
• Time_Traveller December 5, 2011
  Hogg says: "As to Manchester being a symbol of everything Kev despises: garbage. You *know* Kev was a fan, beforehand." What I do know is that Anthony Hogg is the person least acquainted with the facts on this blog. When Kevin Demant first saw Bishop Seán Manchester on television and heard him on radio, his "hero" was not in holy orders. Demant was obsessed with anything and everything to do with vampires. A bit like Hogg. He saw Seán Manchester as an anti-establishment figure who was certainly rocking the boat with his first-hand experiences of things secular society said did not exist. Then Seán Manchester was ordained into the priesthood and later became a consecrated bishop. At first Kevin Demant tried to live with the situation, but he just couldn't bring himself to reconcile to the traditional and uncompromising Christianity espoused by Bishop Manchester. Ditto Robert Brautigam who all along was a close friend of Demant, as well as being an admirer of Aleister Crowley. Bishop Seán Manchester had never really been very accessible. Demant only met him briefly twice (at a public occasion both times). Brautigam met him at Highgate Cemetery and also at the bishop's secretary's Highgate flat nearby. But that's all. They wanted more that the bishop could offer, and they also wanted someone very much more anti-establishment, indeed someone criminal. They found that person in David Farrant who provided more access to himself than anyone could stomach, which included his already decades-old hate campaign. Bingo!
• Time_Traveller December 5, 2011
  Hogg says: " I guess the court was also right in saying Manchester *did* make those black magic phone calls." Correction. The courts said nothing of the kind. Some newspapers did and were forced to print retractions by the Press Council. Bishop Manchester won the court case where a witness who just happened to be Farrant's landlady claimed that he had made telephone threats. The bishop was not found "guilty" of anything because he was the plaintiff, not the defendant. Until the trial, Bishop Seán Manchester had not spoken with or met the witness for the defence, Gillian Bradish. How could she possibly have recognised his voice when she made no contact with him until the day of the court case? Bishop Manchester was later informed by Anthony Hill (in whose cellar Farrant resided from August 1969 until August 1970) that John and Gillian Bradish’s telephone number was ex-directory. Hill was acquainted with this couple and had spoken to them on various occasions in pubs. Bishop Manchester most definitely had not. Hill was a potential witness for the prosecution in the Bradish case, but opted not to get involved in the wake of his elopement with a certain person two years earlier resulting in him being declared a hostile witness if summoned. Farrant remained ensconced in Hill's coal bunker until his arrest on the night of 17 August 1970 after which he was held on remand at Brixton Prison. When allowed out on bail, he took up residence at the Bradish household as their lodger. It was during this period that the black magic telephone threats were made by David Farrant to Gillian Bradish. Farrant initially persuaded Gillian Bradish that the caller was Bishop Seán Manchester; someone she knew nothing about other than what she had read in newspapers. In doing so, Farrant took his revenge on John Bradish for allegedly making advances toward his first wife, Mary Farrant, in the previous year at their Highgate flat where John Bradish sometimes visited. Bishop Seán Manchester knew none of these people at that time and only eventually became aware of the Bradishes through the court case in November of that year. When Farrant’s publicity stunts and arrest at Highgate Cemetery in 1970 met with Bishop Manchester's public disapproval on a television programme and in the local press, Farrant began a personal vendetta which has continued to this day. Farrant boasted about what he had done immediately afterwards (according to Anthony Hill and several other patrons of the Prince of Wales pub in Highgate). Similar reports about Farrant would follow, culminating in a stiff prison sentence for threatening people with black magic which usually took the form of voodoo “death dolls” impaled with pins. He was merely acting true to form.
• anthonyhogg December 5, 2011
  And what's *your* agenda, Trav? Human photocopier? You're still pilfering stuff from other blogs. As to Manchester being a symbol of everything Kev despises: garbage. You *know* Kev was a fan, beforehand. It's more likely than not, that he simply changed his mind after being confronted with another viewpoint/evidence. You don't seem to understand, that the more you malign David, the more people are compelled to seek out his side of the story - and vice versa.
• anthonyhogg December 5, 2011
  Oh, and Trav, in light of the convictions and so forth you repeatedly raise, why not discuss the laws Manchester's broken - by his own admittance. Breaking into tombs, for instance. He's lucky he avoided jail terms, himself. David isn't the Devil you're portraying him as and Manchester's no angel. They're both a flawed people who've engaged in some pretty shady business - and have allowed others to get caught in the crossfire. You wanna talk about fuelling the flames? What do you think you're doing with your bile-filled posts? Just relax, man. And don't be a rude prick by addressing me in the third person, when I'm obviously commenting on this forum, too. Show some courtesy - and you might get some back.
• Time_Traveller December 5, 2011
  There are people like Kevin Demant and John Russell Pope who collude with David Farrant to further the latter's hate campaign. They have their own agendas. Demant is an anarchist who sees Bishop Manchester as a symbol of everything he despises. I am sure there are others whom he attacks for the same reason. Pope, by his own admission, remains a black magic practitioner and obviously finds that sufficient motive to attack the bishop. He is also a longstanding friend of Farrant who has collaborated in many of Farrant's puerile publicity stunts, even to the extent of joining him in the dock on an arson charge at the Old Bailey when they went wrong. These people do not amount to much. They are very few in number. There is a larger group of people who regard Farrant as an incorrigible charlatan, but still use his venomous propaganda to attack someone they see as more of a threat. The Randiites are a perfect example. For them Farrant is a gift because he makes the paranormal appear ridiculous and unbelievable. He cannot string a sentence together without debunking his own claims. Whereas Bishop Manchester is erudite in his explanation of the supernatural and many people believe in what he is saying. Those who are confirmed atheists feel threatened by the bishop, as do others who hold heretical beliefs and engage in deviant practices. As for "muck-raking," it is David Farrant who down the years has engaged in that particular practice, infecting his first born son with the same shameful legacy. The muck, however, invariably turns out to be Farrant's falsehoods and fabricated foolishness.
• anthonyhogg December 5, 2011
  Jamie, the point I made is that many criticisms voiced about Sean's behaviour can be equally applied to David. Indeed, the more this thing progresses, the more they tend to echo each other, till eventually, it becomes a big blur. We've obviously had bad experiences coming from such-and-such in these discussions, but they also tend to taint the discussion itself, by being too one-sided. I can certainly see why you'd take it a lot more personally than - well, everyone else here - in fact, you've shown a lotta restraint, if anything, and I also appreciate that you provide links to your sources (everyone else, take note!), but I'm also sure you can see where I'm coming from. As it stands, this isn't simply a 'he started!' thing (although, Manny's side was pretty stupid in invoking your name as way of getting back at Dave), as both sides resort to very underhanded tactics and general nastiness. The victim becomes the victimiser, and it's certainly not like Dave's innocent in this thing, white powder permitting. ;) There's a lot of dodginess to this thing, as I'm sure you've personally experienced - from both sides. So I only ask that we try to have some balance here.
• anthonyhogg December 5, 2011
  Trav, yes, I provided a link to Kev's 'book', so? It's one word against another, isn't it? If you wanna say 'But the court said...' well, by that logic, I guess the court was also right in saying Manchester *did* make those black magic phone calls. Either way, it certainly doesn't obscure the fact that Manchester was colluding with Pope after that point, re: 'Imperial League of Fascists' debacle. It's pretty obvious that we've got an incestuous gene pool of interactions here, with all the main players seemingly interacting with the people they now malign. That leads me to suspect some form of 'collusion' is going on. I'll be quite interested to hear more about those 'treaties'. As to this, 'They were back in business and a few years later John Pope met Kev Demant. The three of them colluded to portray Bishop Manchester in a defamatory manner by producing a series of tracts which Farrant distributed', if you actually read through the material, rather than condemning it wholesale, you'll see that a lot of what they're drawing on, is Sean's own antics for the press. Strangely, you've obfuscated Manchester's prior involvement in the occult, which is quite telling. I'm not sure who you're trying to convince, what with your copy-n-paste diatribes, but it's made even more ludicrous by the fact that Manchester lets no-one speak on his behalf, online, yet many of the details you cite are not from his own writings. So, take a chill pill and tone down the hysteria. Incidentally, I don't buy for a second that you're someone who's simply 'met' Manchester.
• A Facebook user December 5, 2011
  For Anthony, while I'm obviously fully aware of whats going on between you and David it's not something I'm prepared to get involved in. Sean on the other hand hand is a different kettle of fish and if exposing his lying past means sinking into the muck then so be it. If he doesn't like it he shouldn't have started it.!
• A Facebook user December 5, 2011
  http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=71335..... are all these people 'Farrant collaboraters' then Sean, or maybe, just maybe do you bring it all on yourself with your constant threats and nastiness! ......Sean writes" John Russell Pope first met David Farrant in 1973 from which point they collaborated in a number of quasi-satanic publicity stunts for the British press." a bit like you did when you doctored Davids campaign posters with nazi imagery (it won't go away just because you're trying to ignore it ). I see you're denying your harrasment of Alexander Lucard as well. Love the way you refer us to V.R.S (ie yourself) for clarification. Yet more lies I'm afraid. Talking of which, you also haven't mentioned the picture link I put up, you know, the one of you dressed in robes etc conducting an occult ceremony. Oh, silly me, you lied about your occult involvment as well, of course your going to ignore it!
• Time_Traveller December 5, 2011
  John Russell Pope first met David Farrant in 1973 from which point they collaborated in a number of quasi-satanic publicity stunts for the British press. Unlike Farrant, Pope engaged in the occult with serious intent and considered himself to be the successor to Aleister Crowley. He adopted the title "The Beast" and joined forces with other Satanists under the banner of the United Temples of Satan. Where Farrant would openly boast of animal sacrifices in "witchcraft" ceremonies throughout the 1970s, his associate Pope would admit in private to a desire for human sacrifice. However, when Pope met his wife-to-be and prepared to be married in a Roman Catholic ceremony, he publicly stated that he had put his balck magic past behind him. His fiancee worked for a very close friend of Bishop Manchester and that friend asked the bishop to take some wedding pictures at the church. Pope told the bishop that he was no longer a Satanist, and gave a recorded interview where he talked about his occult past, involvement in demon raisings and curses with David Farrant, and how the latter would always involve the press. Within a couple of years, John Pope was sadly back to his old ways and in cahoots with Farrant who made him head of the junior department of a vampire society. They were back in business and a few years later John Pope met Kev Demant. The three of them colluded to portray Bishop Manchester in a defamatory manner by producing a series of tracts which Farrant distributed. This has now evolved to Demant's website where anti-BSM elements are cited and dominate to the exclusion of all else.
• Time_Traveller December 5, 2011
  All Anthony Hogg has done is provided a link to Farrant collaborator Kev Demant's anti-BSM site. On the linked page Demant quotes Farrant and Pope. So, Anthony Hogg's "evidence" cites the two principal offenders and consists of nothing more than their claims, plus Kevin Demant who colluded with Farrant in a vicious anti-Bishop Seán Manchester campaign. What did Hogg really expect David Farrant and John Pope to say? The truth? It will be a cold day in hell when that happens! As for Alex Lucard, Bishop Manchester has stated that he has never had any interaction with this person. It does not take a genius to work out what was going on. A published VRS statement from 2008 reads: "An American by the name of Alex Lucard has been obsessively blogging about Bishop Seán Manchester for years, employing calumny from the usual source, ie a man convicted for tomb vandalism and desecration in Highgate Cemetery during the 1970s and sentenced to five years imprisonment in the UK; someone who has done nothing more with his life than pursue malicious vendettas, most particulary against the bishop who is his nemesis where the Highgate matter is concerned. Alex Lucard, whose issues of transparent envy might stem from the fact that he is a horror film fan, claims that because his surname and initial - A Lucard - spells Dracula backwards Bishop Seán Manchester is stalking him with view to driving a stake through his heart. Only a very stupid person would dream up something like that. Bishop Seán Manchester has not “stalked” anyone, least of all Alex Lucard whom he does not know, has never heard of and, if he had, would not be remotely interested in. Why should this author and exorcist be interested in someone with an almighty chip on his shoulder? Lucard, in actual fact, is stalking Bishop Seán Manchester, not the other way around. Apart from this rebuttal, you will find no mention of Alex Lucard on any website connected to Bishop Seán Manchester, but you will find plenty of mention of Bishop Seán Manchester on Alex Lucard's multifarious websites. Why is Lucard so obsessed with Bishop Seán Manchester? That, I suppose, is strictly something for Alex Lucard and his psychiatrist to work out."
• anthonyhogg December 4, 2011
  In the meantime, David, could you tell us more about your treaties with Manchester? Pardon me, Time_Traveller - *alleged* treaties. How and why did they come about?
• anthonyhogg December 4, 2011
  'I am not sure who everyone is but Hoggy is funnier in the comics than in real life here in these comments.' Here in these comments? Sorry to disappoint, but there've been no cartoon pigs posting here.
• anthonyhogg December 4, 2011
  Jamie, '....... looks like another bit of Herr Manny character assassination falls by the wayside. The whole thing was obviously his response to my pointing out his hyppocrisy in regard to homosexuality. Unfortunately Manny's only method of debate is to try and blacken the name of everyone else to take the attention off himself. Shame for him he's no good at it poor chap :-))' It is true that Timey's, I guess, 'defence mechanism', is to play tit-for-tat. That said, 'blackening names' isn't the exclusive domain of Manchester. I've noticed your father pull the same ploy against me. I'm sure you've seen me repeatedly ask him to clarify his comments against me, but weasels out of them time and time again. As to multiple usernames, it's pretty clear that 'WillamLaw' (a rather distasteful appropriation - much like Arminius Vambrey, no less - of a dead person's name and identity, whether for 'satire' or not) and 'Neighbours_Son' are batting for Team Dave, and I would suspect, know him personally, and have most likely appropriated multiple identities themselves. The problem with this whole thing, is how 'dirty' it gets. It quickly devolves from a discussion to a quagmire. That's unnecessary. It's been quite disgusting to see what this thing has - and does - lapse into. As much as you say about Manchester (who, admittedly, deserves criticism), I could say about your old man, too. This is not a simple matter of black and white, but everyone being accountable for their own actions and that includes me, too. Let's try and rise above the muck. And Timey, please try and address the issues raised, rather than resort to the 'Well, he does it too!' thang.
• A Facebook user December 4, 2011
  Anthony.....".Well, have a read through this and tell me what you think: http://plan9.150m.com/17%20voodoo.htm And if Pope *was* guilty of that stuff, you've got to ask why Manchester continued associating with him, if it's a matter of guilt-by-association."....... looks like another bit of Herr Manny character assassination falls by the wayside. The whole thing was obviously his response to my pointing out his hyppocrisy in regard to homosexuality. Unfortunately Manny's only method of debate is to try and blacken the name of everyone else to take the attention off himself. Shame for him he's no good at it poor chap :-))
• A Facebook user December 4, 2011
  This is quite amusing, it's from a blog by a poor chap by the name of 'Alucard' who Sean tried picking on...."I have five posts from crazy old Sean Manchester in my “To be approved” folder. I’m debating what is more amusing: The fact he keeps reposting the same thing over and over again because he’s not very web savy or the comments within. If I let them go live, we can all laugh at the insanity and stupidity from lines like equating homosexuals with diabiolists and how he’s trying to get the guy who excommunicated him to be excommunicated as well or things like him calling himself a representative of the “British Old Catholic Church” amongst other things, yet the IP address is the exact same each time. Oh lordy, why do my stalkers assail me so?"......multiple usernames posting from the same computer, sounds very familiar doesn't it :-). The whole thing can be found here...http://www.alexanderlucard.com/wordpress/?cat=4
• Neighbours_Son December 4, 2011
  Well now you've all gone and done it. My Mum was reading this yesterday and saw the comment about paedo and took a fit. I never saw her so angry. She contacted the webmaster and had them remove that post. Mr. Law got the stick from her as well. I am not sure who everyone is but Hoggy is funnier in the comics than in real life here in these comments. I would go as far as saying this silly argument is a puzzle to most people because David Farrant's side seems to be having a good laugh and making people smile while the Bishop Bonkers side is carrying on like a police investigation all grim and serious.
• A Facebook user December 4, 2011
  Good to see you you've seen sense and stopped denying being an occultist Sean, I suppose to be fair you didn't have much choice, what with all the evidence floating around out there. Looks like you haven't been thorough enough with your whitewash job eh! Must try harder, otherwise who knows what other lies of yours might be exposed :-))
• anthonyhogg December 4, 2011
  Well, have a read through this and tell me what you think: http://plan9.150m.com/17%20voodoo.htm And if Pope *was* guilty of that stuff, you've got to ask why Manchester continued associating with him, if it's a matter of guilt-by-association.
• Timelord December 4, 2011
  Anthony, I'd like to see that evidence, as long as that 'evidence' hasn't come from either "Trust me" Dave or the head of the Childrens Department of the BPOS!
• anthonyhogg December 3, 2011
  Mr. Medway, 'I post on here at most once a week, usually on a Friday when I normally visit David Farrant, and it hardly seems worth getting an Internet connection and all the works just for that', right. Well, I suppose you'll be able to answer why you were unable to find the 'missing' paragraph in David's 6/2/1970 letter next Friday, then. Which archives did you consult? Because I can tell you you'll find the paragraph in the Camden Archive's copy of the paper.' dbaymiller, 'hey Dylan, great blog! and welcome to the highgate craziness. :D I'm a long time reader of Mr. Hogg's blogs and they are excellent, well worth checking out. Anthony's not crazy or a liar in my experience', lol cheers mate. Welcome to the asylum! Timey, 'If you are making comments at the past of Bishop Manchester Jamie, let us not forget the wonderful things your father has done in the past, including a 4+ year jail term, as well as backing a Paedo!', if we revert it back to what David's done, then doesn't that mean you're *acknowledging* what Manny's done? As to the paedo thing, do you honestly believe Johnny Pope was a kiddy fiddler? There's some evidence to show that the charges were trumped up against him.
• Neighbours_Son December 3, 2011
  Mr. Law I rang the bell but you did not answer. Mum said you must be sleeping and not to disturb you. If you wake up I will come over and fix the computer. Jason.
• WilliamLaw December 3, 2011
  Jason I have just had my tea, I had liver and bacon. Farrant is still staring at me though, are you saying that that Bonky has done something to my computer? If he has he's going to have to pay up, I've had enough trouble with him already. No I don't think I clicked on an envelope but if he has emailed all my friends from my computer club I am going to the police as I already have given evidence against him before at the Old Bailey and he doesn't scare ME. There are laws about this. Have you had your tea yet?
• Timelord December 3, 2011
  If you are making comments at the past of Bishop Manchester Jamie, let us not forget the wonderful things your father has done in the past, including a 4+ year jail term, as well as backing a Paedo!
• dbaymiller December 3, 2011
  hey Dylan, great blog! and welcome to the highgate craziness. :D I'm a long time reader of Mr. Hogg's blogs and they are excellent, well worth checking out. Anthony's not crazy or a liar in my experience.
• Neighbours_Son December 3, 2011
  Make sure you keep this web page window here open, make sure you are only clicking in this window, not any other one. Mr. Law if you are getting a desktop recovery warning message then leave it alone, do not shut off the machine. Jason.
• Neighbours_Son December 3, 2011
  Mr. Law that is a jpg from one of the other blogs that was listed here, don't click on anything else, you must have buggered the desktop image file with it. Did you click on the envelope symbol by any chance? Don't do that cos it will email that horrible thing all round whoever is in your address book. Just leave it please I will look at it later. Jason.
• WilliamLaw December 3, 2011
  Thats OK Jason you didn't hurt my feelings. No there are no vampires, OR ghosts, OR aliens in the cemetery. I don't know where the aliens come in either. Jason when you were doing your art homework round here did you do something to my PC? There's this picture on the screen and I can't get rid of it, I must have clicked on something wrong. It looks like Farrant but someone's made his face all green and stuck some skeletons over him. Is it that thing you did for your Hallowe'en project in the first year? I think your mum ought to have a word with the school if thats the sort of rubbish that passes for art these days. Anyway can you come round and get it fixed please as Farrant won't stop staring at me. But can you wait an hour as my meals on wheels lady will be here in a minute.
• A Facebook user December 3, 2011
  Sean claims he's never conducted occult ceremonies, well I beg to differ, check this out... http://darkmattersradio.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/SeanTheDevilWorshiper.jpg ....lets see him try to wriggle out of this one!
• Neighbours_Son December 2, 2011
  I forgot to say, this is Jason.
• Neighbours_Son December 2, 2011
  Mr. Law I'm sorry I didn't mean to hurt your feelings about being old. 88 is not that old you know. Gram gets on just fine and we have even seen her dance at Knightsbridge this summer. Zoe is mental and she says all kinds of crazy things but I suppose I must bear it since she is my sister. If vampires were real, do you think they might lurk about the cemetery you worked at? Could it be ghosts that look like vampires? That could also be aliens too, but I can't sort out how people might mistake them for vampires especially if UFOs were about at the same time, the military can spot them you know. Mr. Law I am sorry if you took offence and if you want help with your PC again just call over the hedge.
• A Facebook user December 2, 2011
  For William Law: I am glad to hear that you are not dead yet. It’s funny that everyone is ignoring the things that you and your neighbour’s son have been writing, because I find them really enjoyable. In particular you have reminded us of many things that have become forgotten, such as the involvement in the Highgate Cemetery affair of Michael Welch, Anthony Field, and Anthony Arthur ‘Eggman’ Hill, the latter of who nowadays, I hear, tries to deny that he even knew any of the others. You mention the man with the initials ‘SM’, a “retired milkman from the Holloway Road”, but it should be added that afterwards he worked as an ice cream seller, and then a swimming pool attendant. By the way he, of all people, ought to be able to spell the word ‘publicity’. Then there is the photograph that he took of John Pope outside the ‘loony bin’; he was later asked, with regard to this, how anyone would know if Pope was going in or coming out, to which he replied that it didn’t make any difference, either way it ‘proved’ that he had been in there. It is also asked if a dog collar prevents vampire bites? If, instead of clerical dog collar, you had a spiked leather dog collar of the kind worn by some Goths, it might well deter at least some vampires. For Mr Hogg (I have been told not to use diminutives): I post on here at most once a week, usually on a Friday when I normally visit David Farrant, and it hardly seems worth getting an Internet connection and all the works just for that. Gareth J. Medway, Vice-President, BPOS.
• Neighbours_Son December 2, 2011
  So all the comic book characters at the bonkers web page are based on real people?? What about the 2 Aliens. How were space aliens involved at Highgate, I thought it was only about a vampire. Mr. Law or anyone else know the answer?
• anthonyhogg December 2, 2011
  Lawsy, 'He was always sending in letters or photos of himself to the papers, what he got his mate on the stall to take of him. Then his mate would flog the papers. Kind of makes sense when you think about it. Enterprising. Good business sense', that sounds like the kinda thing Dave did, too. Do you think Manny and Dave were in cahoots, to some degree?
• anthonyhogg December 2, 2011
  Trav, 'Real attention deficit where you are concerned, Hoggy. I am not going to keep repeating what has already been established, but I'll make this one exception just for you ... Apart from it being announced on the internet where the boards are dated accordingly, Illtyd Thomas was informed in advance and provided with an opportunity to put up a defence', Link please [with accompanying dates]. 'He chose not to do so, but he will have a record. The heads of mainstream churches were immediately informed. The Archbishop of Westminster's ecumenical advisor was provided with due notice of the excommunication and its execution.' What's his name? 'He is one of a number of clerics who will confirm the date.' Name five others. 'A priest who was consecrated by Thomas in that year soon afterwards contacted Bishop Manchester.' What was his name? 'For the record, Bishop Manchester has never been an occult practitioner. He studied the occult when young and later on covertly investigated aspects of it which involved him moving in certain circles to gain the confidence of those involved, all of which is explained in From Satan To Christ (1988) and various television documentaries and church videos he made from 1985 onwards, as confirmed in his memoir', Using a necromantic ritual (a practice, of course, forbidden to Christians) to summon a vampire counts as practising the occult. Let's also see how Manchester describes himself in 'The Highgate vampire' (1985): 'Although not pre-eminently religious, I have been left in no doubt by the course of events that evil is not just an abstract force and, most important of all, that such demonic molestation as I have encountered is no match for divine power once invoked. The set of symbols I work with are predominantly Christian, yet you will find in the text that I cast a circle, what some might call a Magic Circle. While I am not a witch in any sense of the word, I suppose as a secular person handling consecrated material as a protection against hostile psychic forces, I am practising "white" magic. The Circle once cast is a ritualised barrier, a consecrated sanctuary; like a church, mosque or synagogue - like Avebury, Stonehenge and Glastonbury' (p. 18), i.e. occultic practice, as these methods are not consistent with Christian exorcism. The rest of the content ('not pre-eminently religious') is certainly odd coming from someone who founded a religious order [Ordo Sancti Graal] twelve years beforehand. See also: http://plan9.150m.com/from%20satan%20to%20christ%20pt%20ii.htm
• WilliamLaw December 2, 2011
  "For the record, Bishop Manchester has never been an occult practitioner. He studied the occult when young and later on covertly investigated aspects of it which involved him moving in certain circles to gain the confidence of those involved." You do tell some whoppers, Bonky. Truth is, there was a time when you couldn't open the Ham and High without seeing his mug plastered all over it, wearing one of his new hats or sitting in some sort of pentacle made with electrical tape on the floor. He was always sending in letters or photos of himself to the papers, what he got his mate on the stall to take of him. Then his mate would flog the papers. Kind of makes sense when you think about it. Enterprising. Good business sense.
• Time_Traveller December 2, 2011
  Real attention deficit where you are concerned, Hoggy. I am not going to keep repeating what has already been established, but I'll make this one exception just for you. "What documentary evidence is there for the excommunication taking place on 1 March 2007?" Apart from it being announced on the internet where the boards are dated accordingly, Illtyd Thomas was informed in advance and provided with an opportunity to put up a defence. He chose not to do so, but he will have a record. The heads of mainstream churches were immediately informed. The Archbishop of Westminster's ecumenical advisor was provided with due notice of the excommunication and its execution. He is one of a number of clerics who will confirm the date. Once again and finally for those with the attention span of a gnat, Illtyd Thomas hadn't the authority to laicise Bishop Manchester for reasons already earlier explained. Thomas' nonsensical laicisation notice was in April 2007, one month after Thomas had already been excommunicated and anathematised. The Ecclesiastical Law Society brought evidence to Bishop Manchester's attention in 2002 which could not be ignored and necessitated excommunication provided the offender was still alive and was able to be made aware of the pending action against him so that he could launch a defence. It was nigh impossible to determine whether Thomas was still alive until 2006 when Bishop Manchester had it confirmed. In the interim, Thomas had ignored correspondence and could not be contacted. A priest who was consecrated by Thomas in that year soon afterwards contacted Bishop Manchester. That same priest later agreed when the facts became known that excommunication was necessary and ceased to have anything further to do with Thomas whose small group of helpers and deacons also eventually deserted him on hearing about the evidence held against him. For the record, Bishop Manchester has never been an occult practitioner. He studied the occult when young and later on covertly investigated aspects of it which involved him moving in certain circles to gain the confidence of those involved, all of which is explained in From Satan To Christ (1988) and various television documentaries and church videos he made from 1985 onwards, as confirmed in his memoir.
• Neighbours_Son December 2, 2011
  You should have heard what she said just now, LOL. I am going to tell her to shut her fat gob. Mum said you were old as Gram who is 88.
• WilliamLaw December 2, 2011
  Just how old does Zoe think I am???
• Neighbours_Son December 2, 2011
  Right she say the video you were in and the two vampire hunters. The BBC would not put it on television if it was all rubbish, and that you got bit when you were superintendent, which there was no records of because it was during the blitz and everything got lost or blown up.
• WilliamLaw December 2, 2011
  Cheeky little madam. There's no such thing as vampires Jason, I keep telling you. Only in the films. Why is she saying I'M going to become a vampire?
• Neighbours_Son December 2, 2011
  Now Zoe is saying that when you pop your cloggs Mr. Law you will become a vampire to which I say rubbish. Because first off you have to get bit and then you would turn into one right away and it would not wait until you are old to strike you.
• A Facebook user December 2, 2011
  Sean....."This does not take away from the fact that Illtyd Thomas was and remained a consecrated bishop in his own right, but any homosexuals or occultists he improperly "ordained" would be outside the remit for cannonical legality of any such "ordinations," ..... does this include you then Sean, you used to conduct occult ceremonies, remember! You used to call yourself 'The Magister' and wear a batman mask and everything!
• WilliamLaw December 2, 2011
  "'Are the schools on strike in Australia too, Hoggy?' No, Lawsy, they're still open. Coming up the summer holidays, in fact. " I bet you don't need flu jabs over there, do you?
• anthonyhogg December 2, 2011
  Oops on the '*after* the laicisation' business. What documentary evidence is there for the excommunication taking place on 1 March 2007? It does sound like some kinda 'payback's' gone on here, but the question is, from who?
• anthonyhogg December 2, 2011
  Dave, 'He made the decision to laicise you in April 2007 after an ongoing barrage of complaints from independent people who you had been stalking and harassing all over the Internet', hold up. You previously said it was because of Manchester's involvement in the 'Black Occult'. Make up your mind, Dave. As to 'independent people', wasn't the person who obtained the letter...actually the former secretary of BPOS? Trav, 'It was not until Bishop Manchester was informed by the Ecclesiastical Law Society in 2002 that he had any idea about Thomas' unacceptable connections', Prove it. 'Hence the excommunication which took place on 1 March 2007', wow, ok, so it only took *five years* to carry that out and only *after* the laicisation. Interesting. Lawsy, ''Illtyd Thomas has a criminal conviction for theft' - not the only one, is he?' Two wrongs make a right? 'Are the schools on strike in Australia too, Hoggy?' No, Lawsy, they're still open. Coming up the summer holidays, in fact.
• anthonyhogg December 2, 2011
  Jamie, 'Very true, I love the way Sean bangs on about the Ofcom ruling. They decided he had the right to call himself a bishop. That doesn't make him a bishop though, it just means he's allowed call himself what he likes, which unfortunately he does with monotonous regularity', not so fast. I'm sure there's laws preventing people from 'calling themselves what they like', or why would such an investigation have even been held at all. The question here isn't on Manchester's character, but on his validity as a Bishop (not in a spiritual, but legal sense). In proving he had a right to the title, doesn't that, by default, acknowledge his validity as a Bishop? Will, 'Manchester knew all what he knew about Thomas BEFORE he got him to ordain him. I don't believe for a minute that he didn't, but at the time Thomas suited his purpose. Then later out of spite he tried to drag him down' so are you suggesting Trav's 'character assassination' was actually on the money, after all? Oh, and to the 'dragging him down' business, I'd add, perhaps, 'payback for laicisation'. That depends on the timing, of course.
• anthonyhogg December 2, 2011
  Time_Traveller, 'Such allegations instantly render the claimant suspect as any action of this kind will be regarded uncanonical and without meaning by other churches, strangely, after that voluminous plagiarised cut-and-paste job from the Holy Grail Church's 'Reasons for the Excommunication of Illtyd Thomas' page, you're overlooking something rather vital. If Manchester was laicised by Thomas for reasons of not disclosing his previous involvement in the occult...where's the denial? There isn't one, which is rather telling. '(He refers, as he has done many times prior, to a Christian Bishop as "Manny." I just wonder, given his talk of even-handedness and fair play, whether he minds being referred to henceforward as "Hoggy"?)' If you want, that's ok. I tend to give nicknames to everyone. Haven't you noticed 'Timey' and 'Dave', for instance? 'Anyway, the context to which I refer is this factual innacurracy from Hoggy to Farrant: "Why don't you discuss the treaties you've held with Manchester and why you guys were in contact as late as 1996?" These "treaties" were counterfeit creations to bulk out Farrant's obsession with Bishop Manchester during a particularly fallow period', sorry, but you can't really know the extent of Dave's correspondence with Manny, seeing as the Bishop does not allow anyone to speak on his behalf, online. You should know that, Trav. 'The final contact between them was a decade earlier to which Hoggy responded with a quote from The Vampire Hunter's Handbook: "Owing to his intransigence over this and his copyright theft, I terminated all correspondence in January 1997 (p. 92)." That is true, but the contact I was talking about was physical contact, not complaints about copyright infringement and further opportunities for Farrant to end his personal vendetta', ah, well, that's *not* what you said, was it? I said they had been in contact as late as 1996. And I proved it. 'The only difference between before and after 1997 is that these opportunties for Farrant to own to the truth in a reconciliatory way were always conducted via intermediaries' Um, hello random person. How exactly are you 'privy' to all this stuff? 'The last opportunity was extended one year ago with Farrant responding in his familiarly obnoxious fashion' that's hardly surprising since such offers shouldn't come from intermediaries, but should be discussed directly. That said, I've certainly seen Dave wiggle his way out of it, but not out of 'franchising' the feud. That might be one reason why he hasn't gone for it: a source of revenue/bile would dry up. 'Nothing has changed. Farrant has squandered every chance he was given to put his house in order and end this pointless vendetta of his which has consumed the vast majority of his life', I'd say that works both ways. After all, the Bishop says David should be ignored, yet his followers and various anonymous friends, tend to blatantly ignore this advice.
• WilliamLaw December 2, 2011
  Are the schools on strike in Australia too, Hoggy?
• anthonyhogg December 2, 2011
  'You seem to be the one that's hiding, 'Facebook account'!' Um, what? I use my real name here. Get a grip, Dave. 'Its very simple really if you stop trying to twist what I'm saying. I have said all along very clearly that he NEVER HAS BEEN a genuine bishop.' I'm not trying to twist what you're saying. I'm stating the facts. 'As to Offcom he merely conned Richard Holloway (the Panel chairman and a practicing Anglican cleric)) into thinking that he'd been accepted by the Old Catholic Church, when in fact, he had not been. In other words, he lied, and Richard Holloway made no attempt to first check with the OCC in Holland who he claimed accepted him. They did NOT!' And your proof of this is? 'Now, it might make more sense to you, if you remember (indeed, even if you even knew!) that the Anglican recognise the genuine Old Catholic Church. But Holloway was not aware that they denied all knowledge of him (Manchester) and his fake claims. Had he known this, he would not have given the judgement he did. Is this clearer for you now 'Facebook User'? (Sorry, I mean Anthony, of course!)' I occasionally use my Facebook account and my Atlas Obscura account to sign in here. Nothing sinister. Chill. Incidentally, I'm not surprised you've dodged the 'laicisation' issue (which you thought was an 'excommunication'). Think carefully: if Manchester was never a Bishop, how could he have been laicised (defrocked, essentially) at all over his prior involvement with the occult? That would suggest he actually *was* a Bishop, wouldn't it? Your association with Illtyd (I'm guessing you 'convinced' him to do that), should speak for itself. Indeed, if Illtyd ordained him within his church - which you repeatedly emphaise is not recognised by certain bodies - then wouldn't that mean Illtyd is *also* a fake?
• WilliamLaw December 2, 2011
  I should be alright I've had my jab this year.
• Neighbours_Son December 2, 2011
  No Zoe has the flu and I am getting it so Mum kept us both home.
• WilliamLaw December 2, 2011
  Jason have you got the day off school cos of the strikes?
• Neighbours_Son December 2, 2011
  My sister said he is not a Bishop he is a priest because a vampire can't bite a priest. My question is why, does the dog collar stop the vampire fangs from going in his neck or does he have automatic protection like in Doomslayer, where a Ninja Master is immune to a level 3 threat but if you don't have that talisman you're done for. Jason.
• WilliamLaw December 2, 2011
  'Illtyd Thomas hid from them and indeed Bishop Manchester his association with paedophiles, perverts and occultists' ' (Farrant's colleague was later found guilty of sexually assaulting a young boy)' Have you still got that photo you took of Johnny Pope outside the loony bin with his suitcase? Colney Hatch wasn't it?
• WilliamLaw December 2, 2011
  'Illtyd Thomas has a criminal conviction for theft' - not the only one, is he?
• Time_Traveller December 2, 2011
  There appears to be an attention span problem with some commentators. As already stated, three bishops took part in the episcopal consecration of Bishop Manchester in October 1991, including Bishop Michael Weston and Bishop James Henry Vermeulen. Illtyd Thomas hid from them and indeed Bishop Manchester his association with paedophiles, perverts and occultists. It was not until Bishop Manchester was informed by the Ecclesiastical Law Society in 2002 that he had any idea about Thomas' unacceptable connections. They brought to Bishop Manchester's attention documentary evidence that Illtyd Thomas has a criminal conviction for theft, has blessed homosexual "unions" and has wittingly "ordained" sexually active sodomites. Thomas stated before witnesses in 1990 to Bishop Manchester that he opposed homosexuals being ordained etc. It was not revealed to Bishop Manchester that he hypocritically was in the business of not only "ordaining" them, but also blessing their "unions." This does not take away from the fact that Illtyd Thomas was and remained a consecrated bishop in his own right, but any homosexuals or occultists he improperly "ordained" would be outside the remit for cannonical legality of any such "ordinations," making them straight away illicit and invalid. It should also be borne in mind that Bishop Manchester was also episcopally consecrated by two other bishops, both of whom held to the scriptural prohibition against homosexuality and would have been horrified to learn the truth about Illtyd Thomas, as was Bishop Manchester. Hence the excommunication which took place on 1 March 2007. The heads of all the major denominations in Great Britain, including the Roman Catholic Church at Westminster, were notified about the excommunication of Illtyd Thomas and none disagreed with the action taken to deprive him of membership of the Body of Christ. Regarding laicisition, Illtyd Thomas, as already stated, did not have authority to laicise somebody not under an Oath of Canonical Obedience to him, and Bishop Manchester at no time took such an Oath of Obedience. Nor did he at any time belong to Illtyd Thomas' autocepahlous jursidiction because he already had one of his own.
• A Facebook user December 2, 2011
  I find it quite disturbing that you could so malign a frail old man ‘Time Travel’ (whom every knows is none other than yourself, Sean) with your vicious and malicious slurs upon his character. Bishop Thomas is now well into his nineties and has been suffering ill health for quite some time. He made the decision to laicise you in April 2007 after an ongoing barrage of complaints from independent people who you had been stalking and harassing all over the Internet (just as you are continuing to do now, and everybody can see you are continuing to do). As he felt responsible for having ordained you, these complaints naturally fell back on himself, but before he carried out this laicisation, he wrote to you inviting you to go to his house in so that you could account for your actions. You ignored this request and hence Bishop Thomas’s decision. Your only reaction was to ‘back date’ this laicisation and declare via the Internet that you had ‘excommunicated Bishop one month before. Pure and utter nonsense Sean, and you know it! David Farrant, President, BPOS
• WilliamLaw December 2, 2011
  So Manchester - you were prepared to ponce about in frilly shirts, go to masked balls and challenge people to duels - but you expect us to believe that your not the sort of bloke who would sign an old fashioned treaty (they had wax seals of your design I believe). Pull the other one its got bells on.
• WilliamLaw December 2, 2011
  Sorry - I intended to say London is not such a BIG place in some ways - people talk.
• WilliamLaw December 2, 2011
  Manchester knew all what he knew about Thomas BEFORE he got him to ordain him. I don't believe for a minute that he didn't, but at the time Thomas suited his purpose. Then later out of spite he tried to drag him down. The branch of OCC that Thomas was involved with had a dodgy rep going way back, and if I knew that as a lay person Manchester would have known it through his 'don't have to go to church because we made up our own' church 'colleagues'. London is not such a small place in some ways.
• WilliamLaw December 2, 2011
  I like the way that Ofcom DID rule however that it was accurate to refer to Manchester as a 1970s weirdo. Never a truer word was spoke.
• A Facebook user December 2, 2011
  Very true, I love the way Sean bangs on about the Ofcom ruling. They decided he had the right to call himself a bishop. That doesn't make him a bishop though, it just means he's allowed call himself what he likes, which unfortunately he does with monotonous regularity. .....I see he's done a nice bit of character assassination on Ilyd Thomas now, claiming amongst other things he performed illicit ordinations. So lets get this straight, Sean says he was ordained by the very man who's ordinations Sean himself says are illicit. Not looking too good for our fake bish at the mo is it :-))
• WilliamLaw December 2, 2011
  'My sister was reading this and says me and my mates and even Mr. Law will go to Hell for laughing about vampires and especially a Bishop who is fighting them for God. I thought this was a joke but want to know if the part is true about him being a real Bishop. ' Son, if he's a bishop then Farrant really IS the King of Spain. For crying out loud, bishops attend ecumenical councils and lead parochial programmes. And actually go to to church. All this crackpot does is sit on the internet 'cutting and pasting' (I believe the term is) a load of gumph and making up nasty nasty websites about people he has never met cos he's a billy no mates with a fathead. No change there then. Bishop my arse.
• Time_Traveller December 2, 2011
  What I would say to Anthony Hogg is that context is everything when he claims that "Manchester confirms he was still in touch with Dave. So, my sources were actually Dave and Manny." (He refers, as he has done many times prior, to a Christian Bishop as "Manny." I just wonder, given his talk of even-handedness and fair play, whether he minds being referred to henceforward as "Hoggy"?) Anyway, the context to which I refer is this factual innacurracy from Hoggy to Farrant: "Why don't you discuss the treaties you've held with Manchester and why you guys were in contact as late as 1996?" These "treaties" were counterfeit creations to bulk out Farrant's obsession with Bishop Manchester during a particularly fallow period. The final contact between them was a decade earlier to which Hoggy responded with a quote from The Vampire Hunter's Handbook: "Owing to his intransigence over this and his copyright theft, I terminated all correspondence in January 1997 (p. 92)." That is true, but the contact I was talking about was physical contact, not complaints about copyright infringement and further opportunities for Farrant to end his personal vendetta. The only difference between before and after 1997 is that these opportunties for Farrant to own to the truth in a reconciliatory way were always conducted via intermediaries. The last opportunity was extended one year ago with Farrant responding in his familiarly obnoxious fashion. It would seem that Bishop Manchester was correct thirteen years earlier when he added these words in his concise vampirological guide (page 92): "... all avenues to have him act honourably now being exhausted." Nothing has changed. Farrant has squandered every chance he was given to put his house in order and end this pointless vendetta of his which has consumed the vast majority of his life.
• Time_Traveller December 2, 2011
  A member of the Ecclesiastical Law Society brought to Bishop Manchester's attention documentary evidence that Illtyd Thomas has a criminal conviction for theft, has blessed homosexual "unions" and has wittingly "ordained" sexually active sodomites. Illtyd Thomas also cultivated a close association with one of the most notorious paedophiles in criminal history in the UK. He is also known to have had associations with various other paedophiles, many of whom are now deceased. It has been known for a long time that Illtyd Thomas has had innumerable occult connections - including Masons, Theosophists and sundry occultists – some of whom he illicitly ordained. David Farrant, an infamous self-publicist, phoney witch and pseudo-occultist, befriended Illtyd Thomas in early 2007, having been an invited guest to Illtyd Thomas' Muswell Hill home in north London. Farrant resides less than a mile from Illtyd Thomas in an attic bed-sitting room he has occupied since his parole release from prison. Since his collusion with Farrant in early 2007, Illtyd Thomas has been the subject of much discussion and concern by innumerable Old Catholic jurisdictions in the UK. It was unanimously decided to excommunicate Illtyd Thomas upon discovery in December 2006 that he was still alive. He had been investigated thoroughly with due consideration since documentary evidence was received in 2002. Hence, at thirteen hundred hours, ie 1.00 pm (GMT), on the Feast of St David, the former bishop of the autocephalous Old Catholic jurisdiction known as the "Celtic Catholic Church" was duly excommunicated on the grounds of violating the sacred species and his office by ordaining and consecrating sexually active homosexuals, paedophiles, occultists and criminals; being guilty of heresy by accepting sexually active homosexual, paedophile and occultic clergy, and colluding with a malefic individual who is a pseudo-occultist, ie David Farrant, to do harm to the ministry, church and person of another autocephalous Old Catholic jurisdiction overseen by Bishop Seán Manchester. The excommunication was officiated and led by Bishop Manchester using the traditional formula.
• Time_Traveller December 2, 2011
  Interested parties who wish to receive documentary evidence held against Illtyd Thomas should contact Bishop Seán Manchester. In the meantime, the following facts, supported by witness testimony, are communicated to clear up any amibiguity or uncertainty that may exist: —— When Bishop Seán Manchester and others in his church who accompanied him first made contact with Illtyd Thomas in early 1990, they did so as an existing church which Bishop Seán Manchester led. —— At no time during Bishop Seán Manchester's period of preparation for diaconation, ordination to the priesthood and episcopal consecration was he under an Oath of Canonical Obedience to Illtyd Thomas. —— At no time has Bishop Seán Manchester ever signed anything resembling an Instrument of Canonical Obedience to Illtyd Thomas. He has always maintained his independence. —— It was always understood during Bishop Seán Manchester's preparation for Holy Orders that he came to Illtyd Thomas as an independent church and, therefore, remained autocephalous before, during and after the threefold ordinations that transmitted lines of apostolic succession, which was the sole object of the exercise. —— Three bishops took part in the episcopal consecration of Bishop Manchester in October 1991, including Bishop Michael Weston of Ealing, London, and Bishop James Henry Vermeulen of Holland. It is uncanonical for Illtyd Thomas or anyone else to lay claim to possess power to “laicise” Bishop Seán Manchester. Illtyd Thomas claimed this after falling under the influence of a convicted felon and pseudo-occultist by the name of David Farrant in early 2007. Such allegations instantly render the claimant suspect as any action of this kind will be regarded uncanonical and without meaning by other churches. David Farrant has been waging a malicious vendetta against traditional Christians in general and Bishop Seán Manchester in particular for a great many years. Farrant has criminal convictions for malicious vandalism in a cemetery, indecency in a churchyard, tomb desecration by the use of black magic, threatening witnesses in a colleague's sex case with voodoo "death dolls" transfixed with pins (Farrant's colleague was later found guilty of sexually assaulting a young boy), illegal possession of a firearm, and theft from a hospital. Farrant was sentenced to a term of four years and eight months imprisonment at London’s Old Bailey in June 1974. He has shown absolutely no remorse since his release and has exponentially worsened with time.
• Time_Traveller December 2, 2011
  It is mildly amusing to find a Christian Bishop's bona fides being dismissed by someone whose charlatanry has reigned supreme from day one when he falsely laid claim to belonging to an organisation that wanted nothing to do with him and was very vocal in saying so. Even Farrant's later witchcraft initiation and participation claims have been dismissed by genuine witches who see him in much the same light as most people, ie a phoney witch and real self-publicist. Bishop Manchester has made it very clear that he wants no association or connection with the OCC in Holland which he regards totally heretical, and only associates with the traditional Anglo-Catholic wing in the Church of England who hold views and doctrinal beliefs close to his own. Bishop Richard Holloway is a senior bishop in the Church of England and, after examining all the evidence, declared in his findings that Bishop Manchester if legally, canonically and morally a genuine Old Catholic Bishop. The OCC in Holland ceased to be Catholic (even though they persist with that title) when they became Protestant in the previous century. Bishop Holloway was absolutely aware of Bishop Manchester's status within an autocephalous jurisdiction because, outside the dodgy Dutch OCC, Old Catholic jurisdictions throughout the world are always autocephalous, ie self-governing. That is their nature and it is regarded by other Christian denominations to be a perfectly legitimate one.
• A Facebook user December 1, 2011
  You seem to be the one that's hiding, 'Facebook account'! "Anyhoo, what you're inferring is that he hasn't been a Bishop since 2006. Yet you were saying he wasn't a real Bishop *before* that...so, which is it?" [so says 'Facebook account]. Its very simple really if you stop trying to twist what I'm saying. I have said all along very clearly that he NEVER HAS BEEN a genuine bishop. As to Offcom he merely conned Richard Holloway (the Panel chairman and a practicing Anglican cleric)) into thinking that he'd been accepted by the Old Catholic Church, when in fact, he had not been. In other words, he lied, and Richard Holloway made no attempt to first check with the OCC in Holland who he claimed accepted him. They did NOT! Now, it might make more sense to you, if you remember (indeed, even if you even knew!) that the Anglican recognise the genuine Old Catholic Church. But Holloway was not aware that they denied all knowledge of him (Manchester) and his fake claims. Had he known this, he would not have given the judgement he did. Is this clearer for you now 'Facebook User'? (Sorry, I mean Anthony, of course!)
• A Facebook user December 1, 2011
  'He's NOT a bonafide bishop', says a former 'High Priest'. Yet Ofcom recognised his right to be addressed as a Bishop. Iltyd Thomas didn't excommunicate him, but laicised him (read that letter again). If he wasn't a Bishop, then how could that be done at all? Also, you'd know that Kev & Chrissie Demant attended his coronation (?) as did Rob. There's a difference between how seriously one's to take him as a Bishop (hint: not very), as opposed to whether or not he actually is one. However, if he was laicised on the grounds you speak of, wasn't Illtyd involved in some dodgy stuff, himself? You'd know: you used to hang out with the guy. Anyhoo, what you're inferring is that he hasn't been a Bishop since 2006. Yet you were saying he wasn't a real Bishop *before* that...so, which is it? Also, of all things to address, you jump on the 'he's not a Bishop!' thing...yet you're still to answer the 'untrue propaganda' stuff you've claimed about me and to discuss *exactly* what you think I believe about this thing. Go on, Dave. No hiding.
• A Facebook user December 1, 2011
  "I thought this was a joke but want to know if the part is true about him being a real Bishop" (Neighbours Son). He's NOT a bonafide bishop, Neighbours Son. Its all one big tax dodge which he used to avoid paying Council Tax for his 'Church retreat'. The real Old Catholic Church based in Holland categorically deny he is involved with them; as does the Vatican and the OC Church in America. Even the Bishop who first 'ordained' him, excommunicated him in 2006 because he failed to disclose his Black Occult practices.
• Neighbours_Son December 1, 2011
  My sister was reading this and says me and my mates and even Mr. Law will go to Hell for laughing about vampires and especially a Bishop who is fighting them for God. I thought this was a joke but want to know if the part is true about him being a real Bishop.
• anthonyhogg December 1, 2011
  Time_Traveller, the link was fine as is, without copy and pasting the entire bloody blog entry here. Please refrain from doing that in future. That said, it's exactly those points raised - mainly testimony from others, not to mention Dave's own indicting statements, which lead me to suspect something was 'rotten' in Highgate. He doesn't seem to understand that no one needs 'propaganda' when the sheer dubiousness of all this stuff speaks for itself. I presume Penthouse was the mag to which Dave agreed to sell naked pics of Martine in the vault?
• Time_Traveller December 1, 2011
  On his 1975 article, Farrant later recalled (to his friend and collaborator Kevin Demant): "When I had time to spare I wrote a few articles. I sent one to New Witchcraft which was used, and I mean, every single word was used. It was written on old scraps of paper, anything I could get together because obviously, they wouldn't have given me official writing paper to do that, apart from which, it would have been stopped anyway. That was smuggled out and used. I also wrote one for Penthouse, because ... they'd played up the sex angle in court and all the papers were implying ... I thought, well, it's a magazine, they could be half-serious. I mean, bloody hell, it was sold in W H Smiths!" At this point, Farrant had contrived an infamous persona where necromantic diabolism overshadowed his earlier attempts to mimic Seán Manchester. He adopted a phoney form of witchcraft where he manufactured quasi-satanic stunts for the benefit of the press. These cost him his liberty and he ended up being sentenced to four years and eight months imprisonment in 1974. Though similar publicity stunts ensued upon his release, he would never again catch the attention of the media in the same way as he did prior to and during his notorious trials at the Old Bailey, and slowly returned to the bandwagon he originally boarded in 1970. Once again, David Farrant began to impersonate Bishop Seán Manchester, having publicly eschewed the trappings of manufactured devilry. In May 2011 he published pictures of himself dressed as a Christian priest carrying a bible. Such impersonation, of course, is illegal in the UK. (http://vampirologist.blogspot.com/2011/11/farrant-facts.html)
• Time_Traveller December 1, 2011
  Farrant's blatant bandwagoneering was a perverse parody aimed at garnering maximum publicity. It fooled nobody, but, unfortunately, his concoted claims gave the press something sensational, ie "naked virgins," to write about. This is what an article in the Hampstead & Highgate Express, 15 October 1971, recorded: "Despite a warning from police that he could be prosecuted, occultist David Farrant said this week he might return to Highgate Cemetery to 'exorcise a vampire' and fight a black magic sect. In the early hours of last Friday Mr Farrant, who is founder of the British Occult Society [sic], performed an exorcism ceremony involving six other young men and two naked girls at a chapel in the cemetery. After the ceremony, one of the girls claimed she saw a shadowy figure which Mr Farrant said was the cemetery's vampire, 'the king of the undead.' ... Armed with a crucifix, a bible, herbs such as camomile, dill and garlic, and holy water taken from St Joseph's Church in Highgate Hill, and accompanied by six other society members, he had climbed over the cemetery wall just before midnight ... etc." Later in the article one of the alleged naked females is identified as Farrant's girlfriend Martine de Sacy. The newspaper reported: "He denied the ceremony involved sexual practices." Then it quoted Farrant explaining: "That's black magic, which involves getting your rewards before you die — wealth, prosperity, sex. Christian belief is that you get your reward after death. The elaborate things involved in the exorcism were purely symbolic, the most important thing was to have people present who believed in God and the bible. The girls were naked as symbols of purity — they were virgins." This, at least, is what he had told the Hampstead & Highgate Express in October 1971. Four years later, however, he told readers of New Witchcraft magazine, issue #4, something far removed from the supposed exorcism with naked girls which did not involve sexual practices, as had been fed by him to the Hampstead & Highgate Express. When describing the same ceremony is an unedited article penned at the behest of the magazine's editor from his prison cell, David Farrant now claimed: "The intrinsic details regarding this part of the ceremony however, must remain secret; suffice it is to say here that the entity (in its now omniscient form) was to be magically induced by the ritual act of blood-letting, then brought to visible appearance through the use of the sex act. ... I disrobed the Priestess and myself and, with the consecrated blood, made the secret sigils of the Deity on her mouth, breast, and all the openings of her body. We then lay in the Pentagram and began love-making, all the time visualizing the Satanic Force so that it could — temporarily — take possession of our bodies."
• WilliamLaw December 1, 2011
  Manchester about this comic business and it only being funny to 4 year olds, my niece is here and she's a maths teacher. She's just asked me to ask you what reading age Rupert Bear is aimed at. I don't know what shes getting at but I said I'd ask.
• anthonyhogg December 1, 2011
  Dave, 'Why do I agree with Anthony here? Simply because I know who the real American Company are, and so you would be unable to produce any proof, written or otherwise. Give it a rest, 'Time Travellor', and stop trying to pretend you are not really youirself, Sean. You may well be able to fool a few people like Anthony, but you are not fooling me!!' Chill out, son. I'm just avoiding your 2 + 2 = 5 trap. It's *possible* that Time_Traveller and Anonymous, et. al., are Sean Manchester in disguise, but I'd rather have solid evidence before making such statements. As I've said before, I've been targeted by one of your lackeys - 'Cecil' - as being Manchester, too, to the point where he warped private correspondence to achieve that 'point', so I know what it's like to be caught in that particular crossfire. Therefore, I'm simply addressing the persons here by whatever username they chose, rather that resort to your hysterical rantings. Focus on what they have to say, not their identities (and strange that you haven't remarked on the 'cowardice' of 'WilliamLaw' and 'Neighbours_Son' for not posting under their real names)... Now, in terms of Gareth, Time_Traveller can keep claiming he's actually 'Cecil', but the burden's on him to prove it - same goes for you and your claims, hint: the so-called 'untrue propaganda' I spread. Still waiting. Speaking of claims... 'No, it originates with YOURSELF Sean! I have secret tape recordings of yourself remember (many of them witnessed) in which you can be heard telling the truth in YOUR OWN WORDS! And these prove your meetings with myself took place until January 1986.' Ok, so...post them. It was claimed you were heard saying 'coon' on certain recordings, now you're saying you have recordings of your own. Release them. Put up, or shut up. 'And no, Hoggy hasn't heard these, and neither do I intend to give these to him until he is capable of showing a bit more respect to the Highgate case in general and those people genuinely involved', hhaha oh man. Dave, you deflect *a lot* mate. I *do* show respect to those involved or who discuss it. Why else - as Time_Traveller repeatedly points out - do you think we share friends? I'm interested in various viewpoints in this thing, and I hear everyone out. Including you. Why do you think I ask you questions at all? Think about it... 'But these are nevertheless in my possession, and can 'blow the whole lid off', your distorted version of events, and Hoggy's! (Even got takes of you swearing in them, Sean. I wonder how Hoggy could reply to that?!)', David, you seem to have a very warped view of what I think about this thing, yet you seem unable to voice it. Why don't you save us a lotta trouble and actually *state* what you think my thoughts on this thing are? It seems you're obsessed with saying how wrong I am...without saying *why* or on *what*. Go on...
• Time_Traveller December 1, 2011
  This is what Victoria Jervis said under oath: "I have tried to put most of what happened out of my mind. The false letters I wrote to a local paper were to stimulate publicity for the accused. I saw him almost every weekend in the second half of 1972 and I went to Spain with him for a fortnight at the end of June that same year. I was arrested with him in Monken Hadley Churchyard. That incident upset me very much. Afterwards, my doctor prescribed tranquilisers for me." Facing David Farrant in court to address him, Victoria Jervis added: "You have photographed me a number of times in your flat with no clothes on. One photograph was published in 1972 with a false caption claiming I was a member of your Society, which I never was." On another occasion, she recalled, how she had written psuedonymously to a local newspaper at Farrant's request "to stimulate publicity for the accused." Back in 1972 during the indecency case, "Mr P J Bucknell, prosecuting, said Mr Farrant had painted circles on the ground, lit with candles, and had told reporters and possibly the police of what he was doing. 'This appears to be a sordid attempt to obtain publicity,' he said." (Hampstead & Highgate Express, 24 November 1972). Speaking at the April 1996 Fortean Times Convention, Maureen Speller commented: "The programme came up with ‘His investigations had far reaching and disturbing consequences’ which I said meant he’d been arrested a lot. Strangely enough, this is more or less what he said. God, I felt old being the only member of [my] group who could remember this nutter being arrested every few weeks.”
• Time_Traveller December 1, 2011
  While inside prison, Farrant had written to Seán Manchester to request support from the British Occult Society to which Farrant owed no connection. He was visited while on remand and told that the Society could not possibly countenance his behaviour. Soon afterwards, Farrant began to falsely associate himself with the BOS, which immediately led to rebuttals appearing in various newspapers. It was only a matter of time before David Farrant began to fraudulently describe himself as the "president of the British Occult Society." The vampire sightings and experiences by others were genuine enough. Farrant was not. His part in the saga was utterly fraudulent. He pretended to be a "vampire hunter" for the next few months before turning his attention to malefic pseudo-occultism which guaranteed a far bigger return in the publicity stakes. This quickly led to criminal convictions which included indecency in Monken Hadley churchyard under the Ecclesiastic Courts Jurisdiction Act 1860. Victoria Jervis was also found guilty. Her revelations under oath when called as a witness during Farrant's Old Bailey trials two years later are damning, to say the least.
• Time_Traveller December 1, 2011
  Seán Manchester took the opportunity to warn against antics such as Farrant was considering when he was interviewed on Thames Television, 13 March 1970, saying that the investigation of the malefic phenomenon should be left to those who knew what they were doing. In his published letter of 6 February 1970, David Farrant had proclaimed: "I have no knowledge in this field and I would be interested if any other readers have seen anything of this nature." Seán Manchester demonstrated on the television programme how such manifestations were traditionally despatched according to vampire lore and tradition. Five months later, ignoring the public warning issued by him that individuals should not take matters into their own hands in this way, Farrant was arrested at midnight in Highgate Cemetery by police who found in his possession a cross and wooden stake. Farrant was alone and claimed to be in pursuit of the legendary vampire said to haunt Highgate Cemetery. Although he originally pleaded guilty, he later changed his plea to one of not guilty after being held on remand at Brixton Prison for the remainder of that month. Charged with being in an enclosed area for an unlawful purspose, he was eventually acquitted and released as Highgate Cemetery does not qualify as being an "enclosed area." The Daily Express, 19 August 1970, reported that Farrant told the police (as read out in court from his statement): "My intention was to search out the supernatural being and destroy it by plunging the stake [found in his possession when arrested by police on the night in question] in its heart." Farrant later reconstructed what he was doing on the night of his arrest for BBC television's 24 Hours, 15 October 1970.
• Time_Traveller December 1, 2011
  I cannot take credit for the following, but I do provide the source I have used (http://vampirologist.blogspot.com/2011/11/farrant-facts.html) for this synopsis: Born in January 1946, Farrant came to prominence in February 1970 when he wrote a letter to his local newspaper claiming to have had three sightings of a ghostly apparition as he passed by the gates of London's Highgate Cemetery. Yet, he told Andrew Gough (Arcadia, 12 December 2009); "For a start, my letter to the Ham and High in 1970 badly misquoted myself (not deliberately I concede). I did not say that I had seen the figure (ghost) ‘on three occassions’: I was describing a figure that I said ‘had been seen on at least three occasions’. This is true – it had. But on these occasions, the witnesses were other people whom I had witnessed by this time." Is it really plausible that Farrant's letter was so monstrously altered by the editor of a highly respectable newspaper to mean something quite different to what he had actually written? Is it likely that Farrant would not have insisted on having such a tampered version corrected in the following week's issue if this had really happened? There is no record of him having asked for any such correction. There is no record of an amendment appearing even though his contact with that newspaper remained ongoing for the next few weeks. There are records of Farrant sticking with his personal "three sightings" account until October of that year when it suddenly reduced to "two sightings." All these years later it has become "one sighting."
• anthonyhogg December 1, 2011
  Time_Traveller, 'The American Gareth Davies is the British Gareth Davies. They are the same person. Davies lived in the UK before relocating to the west coast of the USA.' Interesting, because 'Cecil Lamont-Dwiggins' (strange Dave doesn't chastise him for using fake names), has a similar background... 'It would certainly appear to be the case that Anthony Hogg is unaware of who exactly he has among his internet friends, but his mixing with so many of Farrant's lackeys has probably resulted in him being manipulated indirectly by Farrant.' Ease up. There is no one of that name in my friends list. Where are you getting this nonsense from? 'So many examples could be given, but I'll stick with Hogg's most recent claim: "Like I said, they were still in touch as late as 1996." He makes this statement as if it is a fact. Where does it originate? With Farrant, of course.' Farrant's one of the sources, sure, but so's Sean. From 'The vampire hunter's handbook' (1997): 'Owing to his intransigence over this and his copyright theft, I terminated all correspondence in January 1997' (p. 92). 'Just because Anthony Hogg finds it on a board run by one of Farrant's lackeys' ... that wasn't my source ... 'doesn't alter the fact that this propaganda stems from just one source.' Ah, great, so now you're parrotting Dave's 'propaganda' line...but at least you're spelling it correctly. 'Has anyone had the courtesy to ask the other side whether it is true? What does the other side say?' Considering my comments to the Bishop are deleted 'on sight', that's a tad tricky. 'It is on public record and established in a book written by the victim of so much of this hostility that the last contact occurred a decade earlier.' Lucky Manny has the FoBSM, et. al. to 'back him up', eh? 'What do we know about David Farrant? According to past acquaintances and ex-girlfriends, he was notorious for faking material.' There's certainly testimony to that effect. 'He frequently had others better qualified than him to forge documents do this. His second wife, for example, was very adept at manufacturing items where she forged the signature of her husband's opponent.' Prove it. 'Brautigam and Ecker are Facebook friends of Anthony Hogg who, as a young slip of a fellow in Australia who hasn't been within a thousand miles of Highgate Cemetery, is easily persuaded by Farrant's falsehood provided it is supplied indirectly by those he "admires."' No need to get your panties in a twist. My sources are varied, as you've seen here. Manchester confirms he was still in touch with Dave. So, my sources were actually Dave and Manny.
• WilliamLaw December 1, 2011
  No but you left your yoyo here. Manchester - on the subject of dead gravediggers, have you thought about becoming a patron of your old mate Spike's statue fund?
• anthonyhogg December 1, 2011
  'What I did spell out, was that you were once a member of his Message Board and was merely asking me questions that had been put out as a part of this Boards malicious properganda', do you not see how barmy that is? The questions are not from him, but from me. You'll also recall that when I asked you about newspaper reports and such on JREFF - asking you whether their content was true or not, you *dodged those, too*. You seem to confuse 'questions' with 'propaganda', Dave. Now, what did Don Ecker say about such attitudes? ''But one thing I learned as a detective that has always rung true, when people are too intolerant of legitimate questions ... or regard such questions as an attack … one must suspect that something is being hidden.'' Right on the money. 'There's a huge difference there, so please stop twisting things. The points you DID ask me (including your 'five points') I have already answered in some detail no less: not least in a written interview I gave you for your insipid Blog some years ago.' Again, wrong. As to the answers you provided, they raised questions of their own. That's the way this thing goes. Here you're saying I'm *still* spreading 'untrue propaganda', which is a nice safe term to hide behind, without having to qualify *exactly* what I'm spreading. 'By all means quote my answers again if you want to, but I am not answering the very same questions over again. Its as simple as that!' Change the record, Dave. The points I raised there are certainly different from what I'm asking now, no matter how much you try and weasel your way out of it. The fact you can't even *name* five simple points, proves that.
• Time_Traveller December 1, 2011
  By "those people genuinely involved" do you mean those people genuinely involved in your hoax, Farrant? You know who I am referring to, don't you? The likes of K Frewin, Audrey Connely, R Docherty, Nava Arieli [sic] and all the rest you persuaded to allow their names and addresses to appear on hoax letters sent to the editor of the Hampstead & Highgate Express in February/March 1970? It would be nice if we could hear their side of things for a change, but that won't happen, will it? It would blow your "ghostly apparition" right out of the water!. http://highgatevampire.blogspot.com/ As for the person throwing stones in a glass house and adopting a dead gravedigger's persona whilst having the temerity to call others mentally deficient, my feeling about the comics is that they fail on several counts. One, they are not even slightly funny (please explain where the humour lies because I'm not a four-year-old who might like the pictures and find them amusing). Two, they are not relevant (the history is not accurate to anything which has happened, even in a distorted way, because the tales relate soley to Farrant's ridiculous fabrications about other people). Three, they arise from one man's twisted perception (which is invariably always wrong). Four, they are tedious and boring (who would really be interested in something so unfunny, unintelligent an unwitty?) Five, they are illegal and contravene the terms of Stripgenerator because the author and his dim distributor in Muswell Hill are charging money for them). Six, the only favourable "reviews" come from Farrant's lackeys (nobody else has any more time for them than do I).
• Neighbours_Son December 1, 2011
  Mr. Law can you look to see if I left a hat there yesterday. It is blue. Thank you.
• anthonyhogg December 1, 2011
  David, ''Time Lord', 'Time Warp' or 'Time Travellor' its really all the same to me! For what it really amounts to, is people making comments here, yet being too cowardly to reveal their true identity (put in the singular on purpose).' What you're meant to say is 'Whoops! I made a mistake', but it appears you're too *cowardly* to do that. Instead, once again, you've tried to flip the point. I 'spose that's karma for being so keen to suggest I'm wrong all the time - without backing it up. Hoist by your own petard, Dave. 'I always sign under my true name; as indeed does Gareth (Medway).' Kudos to you for signing under your account. But also...big deal. As to Gareth, he really needs to get his own internets and stop using your account to 'speak'. I'm also waiting to hear back from him on certain issues he's raised here. 'I never accused you of being an 'associate of Manchester's' - so try and be truthful for a change, Anthony, and stop trying to manulipate facts', really? The comic you publish suggests that, not to mention your repeated innuendo that Manchester 'spoonfeeds' me things and that I spread 'untrue propaganda'. You might recall that I asked you, point-blank, about your insinuations on SNW - and why you repeatedly refer to my past membership on his forums, but deliberately decline mentioning that I was also banned from them. Here's what you said: 'By repeating such propaganda that you only learned from his Blog makes you sound more like a "Hitler Youth canditate": i.e. repeating untrue propaganda whilst being too immature to understand it; which is all you've been doing since 2005 or so. In other words, repeating false information that you only learned about from his Blog/Message Board in the first place.' Yet, when I ask you *exactly* what am I spreading, you repeatedly dodge the point. Indeed, you're still doing it, here. So, again, exactly what 'untruths' am I spreading on his behalf or from his sources?
• Neighbours_Son December 1, 2011
  Not sure what you mean about bonkers adding you to the list himself, are you saying someone other than yourself sorts out the cabal memberships? My mate and I sent email to the address given on the cabal page and have got nothing back does this mean it is not for real and we do not get the cabal discount if we order books thru Amazon?
• WilliamLaw December 1, 2011
  And you, Farrant, ought to know better. You know how to pull his strings. Bloody dangerous setting someone like that off, he might blow up parliament or something. Never can tell with these mental deficients. Bring back Bedlam, thats what I say.
• WilliamLaw December 1, 2011
  Manchester I am just catching up with all this. Seems like today you see yourself as some kind of mafiosi PI stalking people all over the World Wide Web and creeping about on the Face Book spying on people. It don't look good for you, mate. Makes you look like even more of a nutter. I'm sure there's laws about it now. I can imagine you sitting there with a glass of whisky and braces, with one of them desklamps on late at night, like an old hack in a pulp fiction story. All on account of a silly old comic book and because they don't believe in your vampire. No one did then, no one sane does now. You're not a mastermind of the world wide web, you are a retired milkman from the Holloway Road. And why are you going round calling yourself all these silly names like Time Traveller and such like at your age? I seen that list on the Bonkers page. Reminds me of when you were going round calling yourself a Lord too. Thank God you did a Lord Lucan and sloped off to Christchurch or wherever it is you live now and left Highgate in peace. Lunatics the lot of you.
• A Facebook user December 1, 2011
  " So many examples could be given, but I'll stick with Hogg's most recent claim: "Like I said, they were still in touch as late as 1996." He makes this statement as if it is a fact. Where does it originate? With Farrant, of course." [Latest statement by 'Time Travel', or Time Warp, or whoever he is pretending to be now!].No, it originates with YOURSELF Sean! I have secret tape recordings of yourself remember (many of them witnessed) in which you can be heard telling the truth in YOUR OWN WORDS! And these prove your meetings with myself took place until January 1986. And no, Hoggy hasn't heard these, and neither do I intend to give these to him until he is capable of showing a bit more respect to the Highgate case in general and those people genuinely involved. But these are nevertheless in my possession, and can 'blow the whole lid off', your distorted version of events, and Hoggy's! (Even got takes of you swearing in them, Sean. I wonder how Hoggy could reply to that?!) David Farrant, President, BPOS.
• A Facebook user December 1, 2011
  "The American Gareth Davies is the British Gareth Davies. They are the same person. Davies lived in the UK before relocating to the west coast of the USA" I am missing your point "Time Warp" - as I'm sure poor ol' Anthony is. You said, 'Gareth Davies' was responsible for the Comics (on whichever side of the world you are trying to maintain he originates). I have said quite categorically, HE IS NOT. For once - maybe just once! - I have to agree with Anthony here. I KNOW who produced the Comic Books - but you most definitely do not! Surfice to say, they were NOT produced by Gareth Davis. Why do I agree with Anthony here? Simply because I know who the real American Company are, and so you would be unable to produce any proof, written or otherwise. Give it a rest, 'Time Travellor', and stop trying to pretend you are not really youirself, Sean. You may well be able to fool a few people like Anthony, but you are not fooling me!! David Farrant, President, BPOS
• A Facebook user December 1, 2011
  "The American Gareth Davies is the British Gareth Davies. They are the same person. Davies lived in the UK before relocating to the west coast of the USA" I am missing your point "Time Warp" - as I'm sure poor ol' Anthony is. You said, 'Gareth Davies' was responsible for the Comics (on whichever side of the world you are trying to maintain he originates). I have said quite categorically, HE IS NOT. For once - maybe just once! - I have to agree with Anthony here. I KNOW who produced the Comic Books - but you most definitely do not! Surfice to say, they were NOT produced by Gareth Davis. Why do I agree with Anthony here? Simply because I know who the real American Company are, and so you would be unable to produce any proof, written or otherwise. Give it a rest, 'Time Travellor', and stop trying to pretend you are not really youirself, Sean. You may well be able to fool a few people like Anthony, but you are not fooling me!! David Farrant, President, BPOS
• A Facebook user December 1, 2011
  "The American Gareth Davies is the British Gareth Davies. They are the same person. Davies lived in the UK before relocating to the west coast of the USA" I am missing your point "Time Warp" - as I'm sure poor ol' Anthony is. You said, 'Gareth Davies' was responsible for the Comics (on whichever side of the world you are trying to maintain he originates). I have said quite categorically, HE IS NOT. For once - maybe just once! - I have to agree with Anthony here. I KNOW who produced the Comic Books - but you most definitely do not! Surfice to say, they were NOT produced by Gareth Davis. Why do I agree with Anthony here? Simply because I know who the real American Company are, and so you would be unable to produce any proof, written or otherwise. Give it a rest, 'Time Travellor', and stop trying to pretend you are not really youirself, Sean. You may well be able to fool a few people like Anthony, but you are not fooling me!! David Farrant, President, BPOS
• Time_Traveller December 1, 2011
  The American Gareth Davies is the British Gareth Davies. They are the same person. Davies lived in the UK before relocating to the west coast of the USA. It would certainly appear to be the case that Anthony Hogg is unaware of who exactly he has among his internet friends, but his mixing with so many of Farrant's lackeys has probably resulted in him being manipulated indirectly by Farrant. So many examples could be given, but I'll stick with Hogg's most recent claim: "Like I said, they were still in touch as late as 1996." He makes this statement as if it is a fact. Where does it originate? With Farrant, of course. Just because Anthony Hogg finds it on a board run by one of Farrant's lackeys doesn't alter the fact that this propaganda stems from just one source. Has anyone had the courtesy to ask the other side whether it is true? What does the other side say? It is on public record and established in a book written by the victim of so much of this hostility that the last contact occurred a decade earlier. What do we know about David Farrant? According to past acquaintances and ex-girlfriends, he was notorious for faking material. He frequently had others better qualified than him to forge documents do this. His second wife, for example, was very adept at manufacturing items where she forged the signature of her husband's opponent. This has been confirmed numerous times, not least by Farrant's most recent ex-girlfriend. People like Kevin Demant, Robert Brautigam and Don Ecker fell for Farrant's counterfeit claims over and again, and consequently they all regurgitated his lies. Brautigam and Ecker are Facebook friends of Anthony Hogg who, as a young slip of a fellow in Australia who hasn't been within a thousand miles of Highgate Cemetery, is easily persuaded by Farrant's falsehood provided it is supplied indirectly by those he "admires."
• A Facebook user November 30, 2011
  "Timelord didn't make that post. You mean Time_Traveller. For goodness' sake, pay attention." [Anthony Hogg, last post]. 'Time Lord', 'Time Warp' or 'Time Travellor' its really all the same to me! For what it really amounts to, is people making comments here, yet being too cowardly to reveal their true identity (put in the singular on purpose). I always sign under my true name; as indeed does Gareth (Medway). I never accused you of being an 'associate of Manchester's' - so try and be truthful for a change, Anthony, and stop trying to manulipate facts. What I did spell out, was that you were once a member of his Message Board and was merely asking me questions that had been put out as a part of this Boards malicious properganda. There's a huge difference there, so please stop twisting things. The points you DID ask me (including your 'five points') I have already answered in some detail no less: not least in a written interview I gave you for your insipid Blog some years ago. By all means quote my answers again if you want to, but I am not answering the very same questions over again. Its as simple as that! David Farrant, President, BPOS.
• anthonyhogg November 30, 2011
  'Think you've got it wrong yet again, Anthony' Think again. ''Time Lord' was referring to the American Gareth Davies I think - not the Gareth I know.' Timelord didn't make that post. You mean Time_Traveller. For goodness' sake, pay attention. 'But you ARE right in saying "How exactly did you work that out?". Simple answer . . . like most of the other calculations they make here and come up with 2 and 2 equaling 5! I hardly know the American Gareth Davies, except from the days I posted on his Website Mind Set Central many years ago. But don't take it to heart, Hoggy. You're not the only things who gets things wrong!' Well, the connection's yet to be established by Time_Traveller. I'll be interested to see his evidence. As to '2 and 2 equaling 5', that's a bit rich coming from you, considering you think I'm Manchester's associate because I was a member of his forums several years ago (even though you conveniently - and deliberately - overlook that not only am I critical of his claims, too, but I was also banned from said forums). You've also frequently insinuated (insinuation's your stock-in-trade, seeing as you don't have the balls to name names, unlike your son) that Timelord is Manchester...with what evidence? Oh, yeah: 2 + 2 = 5. ;) Meanwhile, your mate - CLD or Gareth Davies or whoever - has been suggesting *I'm* Manchester for several years. Yet, you *know* that's not true. So, once again, Dave: you're a case of the pot calling the kettle black. Oh, speaking of getting things wrong, what's this 'untrue propaganda', Dave? You're still dodging that, even enhancing it with snide remarks. Put your money where your mouth is, Dave. Five things. List 'em. Go on, you can do it.
• A Facebook user November 30, 2011
  "How exactly was I supposed to have worked that out, considering Gareth - at least under his own name, and not his various aliases, it seems - doesn't tend to post anything about the case? Where's the connection? And for that matter, how exactly did *you* 'work it out'? " [Anthony Hogg - last post]. Think you've got it wrong yet again, Anthony; 'Time Lord' was referring to the American Gareth Davies I think - not the Gareth I know. But you ARE right in saying "How exactly did you work that out?". Simple answer . . . like most of the other calculations they make here and come up with 2 and 2 equaling 5! I hardly know the American Gareth Davies, except from the days I posted on his Website Mind Set Central many years ago. But don't take it to heart, Hoggy. You're not the only things who gets things wrong! David Farrant, President, BPOS.
• anthonyhogg November 30, 2011
  David, 'Hi Neighbours_Son It is certainly good to learn that you and your friends enjoyed the new site "Bishop Bonkers" and have noticed the interest in the 'Evil (magical') Cabal' -well, 'evil' according to bishop bonkers, that is!' Good to see you complimenting your sock puppets.
• anthonyhogg November 30, 2011
  Timey, 'I think a lot of this is down to the fact we don't know what Bishop Manchester went through during this period, personally and professionally.' Well, Manchester certainly seems to know. There are also autobiographical 'crumbs' throughout his narrative, like closing his photography studio, fer instance. 'That is his own private thoughts and experiences, bar the items he had made public. David Farrant can profess to know, and add innuendo to the proceedings, but that is all he has done for 40 years.' Not quite that long. In the grand scheme of things, their 'feud' is comparatively recent. There's a reason why Manchester defends the charges made against David in the '85 edition of the book, then takes a harsher tone in the '91 version. And, like I said, they were still in touch as late as 1996. 'My own experiences are insignificant compared to this whole case, but I thought it interesting to bring up. Was my hallucination some form of 'possession' or from another source, you ask Anthony? I don't know, but I do know it was during a time of my life were I was under incredible stress and anxiety, hence the reason for the blood test, nor had I drove for around six months beforehand.' Indeed, which is why I asked whether you believed it was supernatural or psychological/medical. That's also why I recommended those books. What's interesting here, though, is you seem to be strongly suggesting that the events Manchester experienced, were actually psychological - even if caused by a 'malevolent' force. 'Anthony, I'm a great fan of David Icke, but I fall short of the belief in 'Reptilian' human beings, unless he is using this as a metaphor' ... I think it's fairly clear from his writings that he genuinely believes in these Reptilian beings ... take away the Lizard People and what are you left with, if it's all just metaphor? 'or perhaps someone of a different mindset would see as demonic or malevolent forces again.' Indeed, what we see with folk like Icke and Von Daniken, for that matter, is an extraterrestrial interpretation of seeming supernatural phenomena. Some folk even think that many folkloric beings were misinterpretations of alien sightings. But aren't we merely substituting one supernatural explanation for another here? 'I'm sure if you have 5 people in one room and something happens - supernatural or otherwise, you would get the same basic story, but some of the intrinsic details would be entirely different.' Indeed, which shows you the power of bias. We're not clean slates, as it were. The way we view things is characterised by our beliefs, upbringing, environment, etc. That's why I've discussed 'faith' in this thread. What is faith? Believing in something we can't explicitly prove. That is distinguished, however, from facts and evidence (a concept which greatly confuses David), over which believers and non-believers alike will find common ground. In this particular case, I'm interested in the 'components', i.e. witness testimony/credibility, are there any contradictions, etc. And I've gotta say, it's pretty weak on both counts. On top of that, there's the clear suggestion that Manchester and Dave were, to some extent, in 'cahoots' and the present bile stems not from a desire for truth, but 'revenge' over a falling out of some kind.
• A Facebook user November 30, 2011
  Hi Neighbours_Son It is certainly good to learn that you and your friends enjoyed the new site "Bishop Bonkers" and have noticed the interest in the 'Evil (magical') Cabal' -well, 'evil' according to bishop bonkers, that is! There are not really any joining regulations; all you have to really do is to be associated with us, and you will automatically be added to its members by the so-called 'vampire research society' aka Mr. Sean Manchester himself! Of course, he doesn't know anything about this (rather claims he doesn't) or the posts being made on his own Blogs about ourselves, but don't worry, you will still be added to his list! Glad you enjoyed the new site and previews of the two comics anyway. If you would like copies of either of them (they are in colour and really constitute collectors items), please just let me know. For the moment, David Farrant, President, BPOS
• anthonyhogg November 30, 2011
  Time_Traveller, 'though I am somewhat surprised that Anthony Hogg, over all the years he has featured as the comic character "Hoggy," has still not worked out that the author . . . "Cecil Lamont-Dwiggins" is Hogg's own Facebook friend Gareth Davies who is also a friend and supporter of David Farrant.' Gareth Davies is not on my FB friends list. 'You would have thought Hogg would have worked that one out by now. Others certainly have.' How exactly was I supposed to have worked that out, considering Gareth - at least under his own name, and not his various aliases, it seems - doesn't tend to post anything about the case? Where's the connection? And for that matter, how exactly did *you* 'work it out'?
• Neighbours_Son November 30, 2011
  http://bishopbonkers.blogspot.com is now my favourite site!!!! I have got all my school mates to go there and they think it is way COOL! We have applied for membership in the magical Cabal in hopes of either learning witchcraft or getting a discount on the bishop bonkers merchandise.
• WilliamLaw November 30, 2011
  Manchester I have just got my neighbours son to get this thing you posted up on the screen http://bishopbonkers.blogspot.com/p/cast.html , and I can vouch that this Davis chap really has got you to a tee. Bloody fantasist, if you hadnt of struck lucky and had to work like everyone else you'd probably not have come unstuck the way you have. You want to find yourself something to occupy yourself so you stop dreaming up all this claptrap, before you start believing it yourself. Indoor bowls or something, I don't know. Act your age.
• Timelord November 30, 2011
  Anthony, I'm a great fan of David Icke, but I fall short of the belief in 'Reptilian' human beings, unless he is using this as a metaphor, or perhaps someone of a different mindset would see as demonic or malevolent forces again. I'm sure if you have 5 people in one room and something happens - supernatural or otherwise, you would get the same basic story, but some of the intrinsic details would be entirely different.
• Timelord November 30, 2011
  I think a lot of this is down to the fact we don't know what Bishop Manchester went through during this period, personally and professionally. That is his own private thoughts and experiences, bar the items he had made public. David Farrant can profess to know, and add innuendo to the proceedings, but that is all he has done for 40 years. My own experiences are insignificant compared to this whole case, but I thought it interesting to bring up. Was my hallucination some form of 'possession' or from another source, you ask Anthony? I don't know, but I do know it was during a time of my life were I was under incredible stress and anxiety, hence the reason for the blood test, nor had I drove for around six months beforehand.
• Time_Traveller November 30, 2011
  Why do people keep referring to John Russell Pope in the context of Highgate Cemetery? In a recorded 1987 interview, John Russell Pope emphatically states that he did not enter Highgate Cemetery at any time in the 1970s and it was still not his intention or desire to visit the place. This might have subsequently altered, but during the relevant period Pope, by his own admission, steered well clear of the cemetery. I am not a publicity-seeker and therefore, in common with most sensible people, have no wish to publicise myself using my given name. David Farrant, however, is motivated by one thing: self-publicity. Any contribution he makes, moreover, is at the level of a retarded youngster. This is the infantile sort of thing, for example, this 66-year-old (soon to be 67-year-old) man is currently disseminating to all and sundry on Facebook, Amazon, eBay, his blog, and various other places on the internet: http://bishopbonkers.blogspot.com/p/cast.html The "Hoggy" character really requires no explanation with regard to his his identity; though I am somewhat surprised that Anthony Hogg, over all the years he has featured as the comic character "Hoggy," has still not worked out that the author (Farrant merely distributes these childish comics using his self-publishing imprint "BPOS" via a Muswell Hill PO Box address which shields the bedsit from where these items are circulated) "Cecil Lamont-Dwiggins" is Hogg's own Facebook friend Gareth Davies who is also a friend and supporter of David Farrant. You would have thought Hogg would have worked that one out by now. Others certainly have.
• anthonyhogg November 30, 2011
  'Oh I don't think my theory takes away anything to do with a corporeal vampire either. In fact perhaps it increases the story because of the power this thing may have had.' Now this is where it gets tricky: how do you, personally, make the distinction between this 'malevolent' phenomena and tricks of the mind? 'Bishop Manchester hasn't just spoken about 'black spiders' and to concentrate on that area is ungenerous to the whole debate' - I agree - 'he has discussed a lot of other wider implications on many interviews over the years to the malevolent / demonic agency at work in Highgate during that long period. Don't forget I don't look at this from a religious point of view either, some would call it demonic, I prefer to use the word malevolent.' I'm certainly familiar with your non-religious views, but I'm curious as to how you arrive at the 'malevolent' conclusion at all. If the entity was not your garden variety demon, then from where does it originate? 'Also worth pointing out from a personal angle that I have no problems with blood tests any more, my fear of this went as soon as I went through this hallucination. ' I'm glad to hear you've no problems with such tests any more. Quite an interesting occurrence.
• anthonyhogg November 30, 2011
  Timey, 'Maybe it's about perception and challenges of belief, certainly Bishop Manchester comes across strongly as believing the final battle if you like actually happened and I'm not challenging him on that because it's a strong eternal belief with him' we'll have to agree to disagree on that one, as it's clear - at least, to me - that his 'final battle' was taken from 'The Devil rides out' (1967). 'However my perception is that the final battle is perceived by myself as being strongly more a psychic attack in nature.' That's quite interesting, because I think you know who actually proffers the 'psychic attack' theory in this thing... 'Here is an example - I hallucinated a few years ago during a blood test - I was freaked out and thought I was in the middle of a car crash. I could feel thuds, smell petrol and could feel myself moving in a vehicle. I was in a treatment room, what seemed like 5 minutes was only 30 seconds, with a Doctor taking the blood totally bemused.' Do you believe this was a supernatural occurrence or a psychological/medical one? 'Again I am not besmirching anything BSM has said in his books or interviews, all I can offer is my own perception to that part of the story that David Farrant takes great delight in (whilst also ignoring his Pan 'thing')', and you're more than welcome to your own perception. Everyone should be. There's no obligation to strictly agree with anything Manchester or Farrant have postulated, their attacks to the contrary. And yes, I know, that 'giant spider' thing is getting really annoying. It also underlines my point about 'faith': that is, we're dealing with supposed supernatural occurrences. Asking for proof on vampires, yet offering none on 'psychic entities', etc., is a double standard. And keep in mind, David's also claimed he actually invoked the vampire through a sex rite in the cemetery, no less. 'In the past I've also had the 'cobweb' experience which is worth a google if you don't know about it - it's said that the feelings of cobwebs on you where there are none is actually something ethereal trying to make contact with you.' Well, to me, the mind can be a funny thing. A very funny thing, and is not as reliable in terms of perception, as we make it out to be. I suggest reading Benjamin Radford's 'Scientific paranormal investigation' (2010) and Michael Shermer's 'Why People Believe Weird Things' (1998).
• Timelord November 30, 2011
  Also worth pointing out from a personal angle that I have no problems with blood tests any more, my fear of this went as soon as I went through this hallucination.
• Timelord November 30, 2011
  Oh I don't think my theory takes away anything to do with a corporeal vampire either. In fact perhaps it increases the story because of the power this thing may have had. Bishop Manchester hasn't just spoken about 'black spiders' and to concentrate on that area is ungenerous to the whole debate, he has discussed a lot of other wider implications on many interviews over the years to the malevolent / demonic agency at work in Highgate during that long period. Don't forget I don't look at this from a religious point of view either, some would call it demonic, I prefer to use the word malevolent.
• Timelord November 30, 2011
  I think BSM puts it better in the Conspiracy Show interview Anthony, when he does say about people asking if it's a psychic attack but BSM says it was real. Maybe it's about perception and challenges of belief, certainly Bishop Manchester comes across strongly as believing the final battle if you like actually happened and I'm not challenging him on that because it's a strong eternal belief with him. However my perception is that the final battle is perceived by myself as being strongly more a psychic attack in nature. Here is an example - I hallucinated a few years ago during a blood test - I was freaked out and thought I was in the middle of a car crash. I could feel thuds, smell petrol and could feel myself moving in a vehicle. I was in a treatment room, what seemed like 5 minutes was only 30 seconds, with a Doctor taking the blood totally bemused. Again I am not besmirching anything BSM has said in his books or interviews, all I can offer is my own perception to that part of the story that David Farrant takes great delight in (whilst also ignoring his Pan 'thing'). In the past I've also had the 'cobweb' experience which is worth a google if you don't know about it - it's said that the feelings of cobwebs on you where there are none is actually something ethereal trying to make contact with you.
• anthonyhogg November 30, 2011
  Timey, 'Anthony, no, my interpretation isn't that - I believe there was an Entity at Highgate. BSM has said in the past about the powers of the 'Vampire' which include such things as teleportation (I believe this was in the Coast to Coast AM interview). If it had those powers, I'm sure it would also have powers to exert a malevolent psychic influence on him, conjuring up things like giant spiders and so forth. That is not to say that there wasn't a supernatural energy involved, of that I am a believe', ok, so let's clarify this. Correct me if I'm wrong here, but it *does* seem to suggest you're saying that this entity had the power of distorting Manchester's perception of the phenomena. How exactly do you define 'malevolent psychic influence'? From what I gather, it does not tally with Manchester's 'corporeal undead vampire' theory, correct? David, 'That's right, 'Anonymous', a 'fraud' is somebody who cannot answer for them selves, but hides behind convenient aliases', not necessarily, otherwise you're implicating people you know, as well. Also, frauds can use their real names, too. 'I am not obliged to show you any evidence 'Timelord'', strange, because you ask evidence from others, yet don't feel obliged to offer it, yourself. That's called double standards. The only 'proof' in the article you mention, however, is that you guys invaded an old house to conduct rituals. That's it. That's not proof of a summoning, but of an *attempt*. And, Anon: any updates on your 'mystery' identity? It seems rather superfluous to mention that Dave would be freaked out by who you actually are...but then not reveal who you are. Comes across as a sad attempt at intimidation.
• anthonyhogg November 30, 2011
  David, 'Sorry Anthony You have really got this all back to front. I stopped answered your questions simply because I had already answered them but you kept repeating the same q' x 7. Rubbish. I asked for five things, you've listed none. You're trying to weasel your way out of it, again. As I said to Anonymous: put up or shut up. '(Sorry Anthony, computer blip. Computer seemed to go into repeat mode - just like yourself. Not my fault).' Lame. 'So, to continue . . . "but you kept repeating the same questions, just because you didn't get the answers you wanted to hear'. I am under NO obligation to answer your questions again, Anthony, especially after I have already done so.' You haven't done so, and I can prove it: show where you've answered it. And you *are* obligated to prove things if you make a claim against someone. There's a reason why we have laws preventing say-anything-about-anyone. You should know: you took a few newspapers to court over it. 'This is not some form of 'Internet arguement' (although I suspect it is for you). I have neither the time nor inclination to get involved into debates about the 'colour of ghosts' or 'vampires' just to suit your own Highgate 'vampire' theories.' And what exactly are my theories? You certainly have time to waffle on, but strangely not enough time to clarify your statements. 'You have stated that you believe 'ghosts' are really legions of demons 'sent by the devil' that manifest themselves themselves ast as the souls or spirits of the departed, to try and deceive the living that they may be relatives, friends or associates.' Ah, speaking of repetition, raising that one again, eh? I've clarified that many, many times. 'I have told you before, that I simply do not accept your views.' I wasn't imposing these views on you. Once again, you're engaging in an ad hominem attack. Pathetic. 'You offer no proof of your assumption other than to say 'no proof is necessary' because this is a 'matter of faith'!' Because, unlike you, I'm honest about it. The supernatural, generally speaking, *is* a matter of faith. I have my Christian interpretations, you have your occultic ones - as evinced by your use of 'ley lines', 'entities', etc. 'And then you go on to demand 'proof' of the Society's investgations into 'ghosts' and 'vampires' just becaue these do not happen to accord with your own.' Wrong. I have not asked you to prove the supernatural here. I have asked you for proof on certain aspects of your testimony, et. al. That's *not* a matter of faith, when you declare them 'facts'. Nice try. 'Any 'proof' I have offered you, is just dismissed, while you hold fast to your own unprovable views.' Example? 'I am not offerring you any such proof Anthony, until you can first provide some for the (your own) statements you have already proferred above.' Ah, so you're blackmailing me for evidence of my own beliefs? What a bizarre proposition. Again, I am not asking you for proof of your supernatural claims. The questions I've asked you, primarily concern, mmm, let's say, 'secular' matters. In fact, the last item I asked you to discuss, was your 'close' connection to Manchester. Again, nice try. ''Thus far, you have provided us with no explanation to back up your own statemewnts. When you do so, I might consider answering you further.' You'll have to clarify which statements those are. That was just so much waffle, obviously designed to throw readers off: type enough words it *looks* like you're saying something. But break it down, and it's just guff. So, again, David: what is the 'untrue propaganda' I speak. No vague allusions. Specific examples. Go on. And while you're at it, why don't you discuss the treaties you've held with Manchester and why you guys were in contact as late as 1996?
• WilliamLaw November 30, 2011
  'If the person posing as "William Law" thinks I feel the slightest bit ruffled by him making threats, I'll gladly meet him. Bring it on. I can't wait. Like most cowards, he'll never show his face when push comes to shove.' But you'd probably enjoy being locked in a vault overnight, Manchester. I can guarantee you wouldn't find any vampires on my watch though. Well, you didn't! Farrant, Welch, Field, Hill, Pope - you're all crackpots. But you, Manchester are the biggest crackpot of all, and you know it. Which is saying something with Welch being in the equation. You lot all need your heads banging together. And as for calling me a coward, sonny - cowardly is letting other people go down for the same things you were getting up to, and still making out you were whiter than white 40 years on. You know what you all kept your mouth shut about at the time, and you know why. If I had my way, you'd all have been strung up together.
• A Facebook user November 30, 2011
  I am not obliged to show you any evidence 'Timelord'. But if you are in any doubts, you can however, check with the Hornsey Road who brought the case against me in December 1973. "What goes on at the House of Dracula", being one newspaper headline. Don't take my word for it, please. Just check - although sorry to perhaps disappoint you, but that case against myself was dismissed in that same month. Its all on Police record, so check if you want to! David Farrant, President, British Psychic and Occult Society.
• A Facebook user November 30, 2011
  That's right, 'Anonymous', a 'fraud' is somebody who cannot answer for them selves, but hides behind convenient aliases. I don't happen to do that and always sign my name to my own posts, like this one. When you hide behind all these Internet aliases, Sean, you only serve to considereably weaken your own case and nobody - but nobody - ends up believing you! You have carefully avoiding any of the facts I put up in answer to your recent posts. Everybody can see that. Why? Because you know I am telling the truth, so you would prefer just not to answer. Now THAT really is cowardice of the highest form! A man who prefers to hide behind fictitious aliases because he hasn't got the courage to put his own name to them! That really is cowardice! David Farrant, President, BPOS
• Timelord November 30, 2011
  David, show me evidence that you conjured up the entity known as Pan. Or was that a joke as well?
• Timelord November 30, 2011
  Anonymous, absolutely correct. It is fairly obvious what David Farrant was in it for from day one, and it wasn't from the context of a "psychic researcher".
• Timelord November 30, 2011
  Anthony, no, my interpretation isn't that - I believe there was an Entity at Highgate. BSM has said in the past about the powers of the 'Vampire' which include such things as teleportation (I believe this was in the Coast to Coast AM interview). If it had those powers, I'm sure it would also have powers to exert a malevolent psychic influence on him, conjuring up things like giant spiders and so forth. That is not to say that there wasn't a supernatural energy involved, of that I am a believer.
• Anonymous November 30, 2011
  Timelord will answer for himself because I agree it is a little unclear as to what he is driving at even though I think I've got the basic gist of it. What for me separates Sean Manchester and David Farrant is that Manchester clearly believes what he claims and Farrant does not. If demons do not exist you could perhaps argue that Manchester is deluded and deranged, but I don't think for a minute he is insincere. If anything, he is testament to the existence of such things. Farrant, on the other hand, is transparently insincere and disingenuous which is why his account changes every time he tells it. How many sightings was that he had of a ghostly spectre? Three? Two? One? Because he claimed all those numbers at different times. David Farrant is quite obviously a very dodgy character, a charlatan and a complete and utter fraud.
• Anonymous November 30, 2011
  If the person posing as "William Law" thinks I feel the slightest bit ruffled by him making threats, I'll gladly meet him. Bring it on. I can't wait. Like most cowards, he'll never show his face when push comes to shove. As for the rest, apart from Timelord and Vampirologist, they obviously have no real life and nothing better to do with themselves than post abuse about Sean Manchester wherever they can find on the web. David Farrant's organge election poster, as circulated by him and given to the Hornsey Journal, can be viewed near the foot of the page linked here: http://friendsofbishopseanmanchester.blogspot.com/2010/10/don-ecker.html
• A Facebook user November 30, 2011
  (Sorry Anthony, computer blip. Computer seemed to go into repeat mode - just like yourself. Not my fault). So, to continue . . . "but you kept repeating the same questions, just because you didn't get the answers you wanted to hear'. I am under NO obligation to answer your questions again, Anthony, especially after I have already done so. This is not some form of 'Internet arguement' (although I suspect it is for you). I have neither the time nor inclination to get involved into debates about the 'colour of ghosts' or 'vampires' just to suit your own Highgate 'vampire' theories. You have stated that you believe 'ghosts' are really legions of demons 'sent by the devil' that manifest themselves themselves ast as the souls or spirits of the departed, to try and deceive the living that they may be relatives, friends or associates. I have told you before, that I simply do not accept your views. You offer no proof of your assumption other than to say 'no proof is necessary' because this is a 'matter of faith'! And then you go on to demand 'proof' of the Society's investgations into 'ghosts' and 'vampires' just becaue these do not happen to accord with your own. Any 'proof' I have offered you, is just dismissed, while you hold fast to your own unprovable views. I am not offerring you any such proof Anthony, until you can first provide some for the (your own) statements you have already proferred above. Thus far, you have provided us with no explanation to back up your own statemewnts. When you do so, I might consider answering you further. David Farrant
• A Facebook user November 29, 2011
  Sorry Anthony You have really got this all back to front. I stopped answered your questions simply because I had already answered them but you kept repeating the same q
• A Facebook user November 29, 2011
  Sorry Anthony You have really got this all back to front. I stopped answered your questions simply because I had already answered them but you kept repeating the same q
• A Facebook user November 29, 2011
  Sorry Anthony You have really got this all back to front. I stopped answered your questions simply because I had already answered them but you kept repeating the same q
• A Facebook user November 29, 2011
  Sorry Anthony You have really got this all back to front. I stopped answered your questions simply because I had already answered them but you kept repeating the same q
• A Facebook user November 29, 2011
  Sorry Anthony You have really got this all back to front. I stopped answered your questions simply because I had already answered them but you kept repeating the same q
• A Facebook user November 29, 2011
  Sorry Anthony You have really got this all back to front. I stopped answered your questions simply because I had already answered them but you kept repeating the same q
• A Facebook user November 29, 2011
  Sorry Anthony You have really got this all back to front. I stopped answered your questions simply because I had already answered them but you kept repeating the same q
• anthonyhogg November 29, 2011
  Timey, 'Anthony, yes, that's my interpretation of it', if that's your interpretation, then do you realise that you're saying the whole thing was essentially all in Manchester's head? Staking corpses, etc.?
• anthonyhogg November 29, 2011
  I'll tell you what I find odd, David, the evidence showing that you went along with Manchester's various schemes, including the duels you guys 'participated' in. You were both still in touch as late as 1996, and have signed 'treaties', have you not? Why, I wonder... maybe to keep a lid on what you were both up to. A gag order which was broken when one or the other couldn't keep their mouth shut. Therefore, you taking the 'moral high ground' here is somewhat laughable. It's good of you to demand answers of Anonymous - whether or not he's one of Manchester's latest incarnations - but what's not on, is making charges against myself, then not answering them. You said I do little more than spread 'untrue propaganda', and I asked for five examples of that. You've given none. So, go on, David. Stop dodging the point. List what 'lies' I've spread.
• A Facebook user November 29, 2011
  PS Perhaps Sean would like to clarify statements he has made on the Internet and elsewhere, that he has direct blood liniage back to King Authur and James 1st of England and that his wife has similar 'direct descent' that can be traced back to King Charles 2nd? Or that he is directly descended (again by blood) to the poet Lord Byron? Or his claims to have staked 'dozens of real vampires' which he made on a BBC Internet programme? I don't think anybody has ever seen any evidence for this; or indeed, his published statement that he 'staked' a disciple (Lusia) of the King Vampire of the Undead that he says lurked in London's Highgate Cemetery, who turned into a 'giant spider' before he 'staked her as well! Well Sean? What about some real answers on these points? David Farrant
• A Facebook user November 29, 2011
  "Just before his post descended into the usual 'I hate David' gibberish, Sean had this to say "I have also provided concrete evidence regarding his (davids) attempt to stand at a General Election with posters that bore Nazi eagles, runes and slogans." As has been pointed out several times on here (and elsewhere) the only posters with nazi emblems on them were the ones Sean created with a photocopyer! Nice try though Manny!......." Well observeed,Jamie. That whole thing was exposed as an attemtped hoax in 1978 by a London magazine who had received flyers of these botched up photocopies showing myself superimposed on them holding a machine gun with the caption of myself supposedly sayinh . . . "The Future can be Yours - If you've got the Guts to Fight for it!"! That magazine (not to mention the National and local Press) all knew who was really responsible. (They just described him as a "rival occultist"). He had made front page news the previous year (October 1977) in the Daily Mirror and Sunday People when he had been exposed attempting another hoax whereinhe had sent in a photograph of himself dressed up in Nazi uniform referring to himself as the "Commander". (But he later denied it was himself, of course, after the People had published their expose together with the fake photograph. He took his case to the (then) Press Council but lost it out-right.! Come on Sean. Stop this silly act. Everybody here knows it is yourself - and yourself alone - really writing all this hateful stuff. Call yourself a 'man of the cloth'? I somehow don't think so! More like a very sick little man who is being influenced by the devil! David Farrant.
• Timelord November 29, 2011
  Anthony, yes, that's my interpretation of it.
• A Facebook user November 29, 2011
  Just before his post descended into the usual 'I hate David' gibberish, Sean had this to say "I have also provided concrete evidence regarding his (davids) attempt to stand at a General Election with posters that bore Nazi eagles, runes and slogans." As has been pointed out several times on here (and elsewhere) the only posters with nazi emblems on them were the ones Sean created with a photocopyer! Nice try though Manny!.......I can't help noticing too, that Manny writes nazi with a capital 'N'! Quite telling in itself I think!
• A Facebook user November 29, 2011
  Sean:"Simpson has never met or spoken to Sean Manchester and based her biased and flawed entry on an account written by her overseas colleague Bill Ellis who has also not met Sean Manchester".......... I think you'll find the Dracula comparison was actually based on your plagiarised book; duh!
• WilliamLaw November 29, 2011
  P.S. - Only my friends call me Bill.
• WilliamLaw November 29, 2011
  'Proof that the dead do return from the grave is having "retired cemetery superintendent" William Law post on this blog. Bill has been dead for years!' Manchester, you KNOW what I'd like to do to you if I caught you. And I'm not dead yet unless you're saying I'm one of your vampires too. Bunch of cranks, the lot of you.
• anthonyhogg November 29, 2011
  Anonymous, 'I am not dismissing Bill Ellis solely on the grounds that he had no real interest in Sean Manchester's account because it did not fit and compliment his ostension theory in the way that Farrant's clearly did, something Ellis himself later admitted'. Citation, please. 'I dismiss it along with Simpson's on the grounds that they managed to get so much wrong. They couldn't even attribute the correct report to the correct newspaper article', despite its flaws, it's the most thorough examination of the case with the most materials consulted. Ellis' meticulous citations are brilliant leads. A great check-list. 'What I want to know is what makes someone like Jacqueline Simpson qualified to write the Wikipedia entry on the Highgate Vampire when she knows next to nothing about the case, has met nobody involved in the case, and has showed no interest into entering into any kind of dialogue with the author of "The Highgate Vampire" as he has revealed.' What exactly is *wrong* with the Wikipedia article? 'Garbage. It's certainly good enough for me, and all the others who have heard it, and that is all that matters as far as I am concerned.' In other words, you're unwilling to provide proof. See the second option I gave. 'What do you think I'm going to do to prove it? Put you in touch with those who have these recordings?' Yes. 'They'd really thank me for doing that.' Try asking them, first. 'On the Fascist business, I had already stated before you piped in that I did not consider Farrant to be a Nazi', no, but you did insinuate that he trumpted a fascist platform through the Wiccan Worker's Party 'and the reason Farrant would be shaken if he realised who I am is because of the nature of how we "met". That rules out Sean Manchester who I have already stated on this blog I have also met.' Ok, so...what's your point? 'Unfortunately, you are playing Farrant and son's infantile game of repeatedly putting Sean Manchester in the frame whenever an informed contributor comments adversely about Farrant.' No, I don't, although that was in jest. But I gotta admit your intimate familiarity with stuff concerning a guy you only 'met' is kinda suss. Anyhoo, as to Farrant being freaked out by who you are, when's the great reveal? Who are you?
• Anonymous November 29, 2011
  "Narrow-minded, bigoted, liar, publicity-seeker? Sure. But Fascist? Unlikely. Jamie, 'Ok Sean, where's this recording you claim to have heard then, oh that's right it never existed', I second that: put up or shut up." Garbage. It's certainly good enough for me, and all the others who have heard it, and that is all that matters as far as I am concerned. What do you think I'm going to do to prove it? Put you in touch with those who have these recordings? They'd really thank me for doing that. On the Fascist business, I had already stated before you piped in that I did not consider Farrant to be a Nazi, and the reason Farrant would be shaken if he realised who I am is because of the nature of how we "met". That rules out Sean Manchester who I have already stated on this blog I have also met. Unfortunately, you are playing Farrant and son's infantile game of repeatedly putting Sean Manchester in the frame whenever an informed contributor comments adversely about Farrant. I suppose if you mix with Farrant apologists from day to day and have them as your friends on Facebook and forums and in groups, some of their gross stupidity is bound to rub off.
• Anonymous November 29, 2011
  I am not dismissing Bill Ellis solely on the grounds that he had no real interest in Sean Manchester's account because it did not fit and compliment his ostension theory in the way that Farrant's clearly did, something Ellis himself later admitted. I dismiss it along with Simpson's on the grounds that they managed to get so much wrong. They couldn't even attribute the correct report to the correct newspaper article. Some were totally in error and others were followed by retractions which they ignored if they saw them in the first place. Their agenda was to bang their ostension drum which they extended to incidents of satanic ritual abuse which they also believed to be ostension even though in many of the cases cited the facts proved otherwise. What I want to know is what makes someone like Jacqueline Simpson qualified to write the Wikipedia entry on the Highgate Vampire when she knows next to nothing about the case, has met nobody involved in the case, and has showed no interest into entering into any kind of dialogue with the author of "The Highgate Vampire" as he has revealed. The reason Ellis gave for no meeting taking place between himself and Manchester is also inaccurate. Sean Manchester explains in his memoir why they did not meet and, surprise ... suprise, it is a very different explanation to the one Ellis offers.
• anthonyhogg November 29, 2011
  Anonymous, 'Simpson has never met or spoken to Sean Manchester and based her biased and flawed entry on an account written by her overseas colleague Bill Ellis who has also not met Sean Manchester, but did meet Farrant in 1992. Both Ellis and Simpson have an agenda as already established by Vampirologist earlier on this thread.' Garbage. Sure, Simpson based her work on Ellis' writings, but don't dismiss Ellis because he didn't meet Manchester. He did try to initiate contact with him, but was dismissed on the following grounds: 'In a photocopied response to my request for an interview in 1992, the Rt. Rev. Manchester politely declined, saying that he wished to devote himself to his church work and put his vampire-hunting past behind him.' So much for that. 'That doesn't alter the fact that Farrant uses racist language when he feels it is safe to do so, which in the past was quite often.' Which brings to mind the references to 'billabongs', 'kangaroos' and whatnot to mind, when he discusses myself. It's quite pathetic. That said, this WWP thing is an obvious ruse. Narrow-minded, bigoted, liar, publicity-seeker? Sure. But Fascist? Unlikely. Jamie, 'Ok Sean, where's this recording you claim to have heard then, oh that's right it never existed', I second that: put up or shut up. Speaking of which, Anon, 'If Farrant knew who I am he would probably faint on the spot.' Sean Manchester? If not, who?
• anthonyhogg November 29, 2011
  Timy, 'Anthony, as regards my thoughts about the Bishop's story. I think I've said before that I believe some of it to be a psychological attack on him and some of it on being an entity itself which also provided the psychological attacks, be it a vampire, ghost, even what might be called a 'demonic manifestation', and on asking the Bishop this he did deny the psychological part and has denied it again recently in the interview on Canadian Television.' So you're suggesting some kinda demonic entity was messing with his head? Unless you mean 'psychic' or 'psychical'.
• Anonymous November 29, 2011
  Jamie Coster, you are nothing more than a mouthpiece for your vindictive old man and others with an axe to grind who are so removed from the facts that they are on a different planet, never mind a different continent. You talk about someone being "shady" while completely ignoring everything I have brought to your attention. Your only response is something along the lines of "it never existed" when I mention that I have personally heard David Farrant refer to black people as "coons" in taped conversations. Those who knew Farrant well from the past say it was a term he used all the time. Talk to some of those people who knew him. I have also provided concrete evidence regarding his attempt to stand at a General Election with posters that bore Nazi eagles, runes and slogans. Ironically, Farrant is xenophobic and doesn't like Germans because he loathed his stepmother who was German. This leads me to believe his WWP was yet another attempt by him to garner yet more notoriety in the media to guarantee himself P-U-B-L-I-C-T-Y ..... like him claiming to be what to all intents and purposes is a Satanist saying he sacrificed animals, held graveyard ceremonies with a naked girl, sent voodoo death dolls and other black magic curses to people etc. All of which, in my view, was solely for the purpose of achieving publicity. That doesn't alter the fact that Farrant uses racist language when he feels it is safe to do so, which in the past was quite often. Is he a Nazi? Is he an occultist? Is he a witch? Is he a serious investigator of things paranormal? Was he ever any of those things? No, of course he wasn't. He has only ever been a hoaxer and an incorrigible attention-seeker whose vanity and addiction to seeing himself in newsprint led him to receiving a 4 years and 8 months prison sentence. That is the long and the short of it.
• Anonymous November 29, 2011
  Yeah, Jamie Coster, a Wikipedia entry written by Jacqueline Simpson who also erroneously believed that David Farrant and Sean Manchester were schoolboy chums when in fact they first knew each other when Farrant was 24 years old. Simpson has never met or spoken to Sean Manchester and based her biased and flawed entry on an account written by her overseas colleague Bill Ellis who has also not met Sean Manchester, but did meet Farrant in 1992. Both Ellis and Simpson have an agenda as already established by Vampirologist earlier on this thread. As for "ritual acts of vandalism and desecration", I hope Jamie Coster realises this is a direct reference to his daddy who was convicted of both these crimes along with others involving his brand of theatrical "Satanism".
• Anonymous November 29, 2011
  Proof that the dead do return from the grave is having "retired cemetery superintendent" William Law post on this blog. Bill has been dead for years!
• A Facebook user November 29, 2011
  As an example of Seans lack of originality here's part of the wikipedia entry on the subject....."Manchester's story is full of melodramatic details mirroring the Dracula mythos: the sleepwalking girl; the vampire transported to England in a coffin; a coffined corpse 'gorged and stinking with the life-blood of others', with fangs and burning eyes; his own role as a Van Helsing figure. If he did indeed act as he describes, it can be regarded as a good example of what folklorists (following terminology established by Linda Degh) now call 'ostension' and legend tripping. This means the real-life imitation of elements from a well-known tale, often involving role-playing, and sometimes leading to ritual acts of vandalism and desecration.".......for the full article see here: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highgate_Vampire.......and this bloke expects people to take him seriously, ha ha :-)))
• A Facebook user November 29, 2011
  Ok Sean, where's this recording you claim to have heard then, oh that's right it never existed. All you're doing is repeating whats been said by other people...again. The difference is, there's actually evidence about your shady past. i.e nazi, occultist, plagiarist etc. When your lies get exposed you just recycle whats been said but substitute David for yourself in a vain attempt to turn it onto him. Just read back through the posts on here, it speaks for itself.
• A Facebook user November 28, 2011
  Sean......"Farrant is not a Nazi per se" , thanks for clearing that up!
• WilliamLaw November 28, 2011
  I still think you're all nutcases.
• Anonymous November 28, 2011
  Farrant is not a Nazi per se, but he certainly holds racist views and has a long list of Nazi-minded close friends who go back donkey's years. His bona fide election posters from 1978 bore the same slogan and appearance as that of a Nazi poster he must have seen which belonged to the League of Imperial Fascists. Why did he copy it? The poster submitted to the Hornsey Journal by him and about which he was interviewed called for the banning of ritual slaughter. Who carries out ritual slaughter? Jews and Muslims! Then there is the not so small matter of Farrant's term of reference for black people which his first born Jamie Coster chooses to ignore along with everything else about his dad which is a total embarrassment. "Coons" is what Farrant called them. I've heard him on recordings using that term. People who knew him well say he used the word "coon" all the time to describe blacks. There is also the published letter from him in the Hornsey Journal, 21 July 1978, where Farrant claims: "The WWP is a serious political party and has growing support from people all over the country; including other political groups with whom we are now amalgamated." He won't identify who these "other political groups" are because he revealed that the NF was one such group at the time. Just ask any of the journalists who were covering his political ambitions in 1978. Just ask anyone who knew him back then.
• A Facebook user November 28, 2011
  Sean..... "I am not talking about the ludicrous posters of Farrant waving a gun about which were made to look as if they had been forged by a small infant"..... well they're exactly the ones I'm talking about, the ones from the beginning of Seans cut and pasting career. What gets me though is that despite his numerous attempts to paint David as a nazi he himself stands for extreme right wing politics even to the extent of posing in full nazi regalia? Mind you he also dresses as a bishop as well nowadays, so maybe he's just a liar and a hyppocrite (but we all knew that anyhow)! For David, thanks for clarifying that, while I don't think for one minute anybody who's aware of Sean is going to believe his wild stories it's good to have some clarification and the blanks filled in. I'll give you a buzz tonight regarding the other thing. J
• Anonymous November 28, 2011
  David Farrant prepared to stand as a candidate in a forthcoming British General Election and launched what was described as the "Wicca Workers Party" to the cry of "Wiccans Awake!" Journalist and editor Peter Hounam wrote a front page story for the Hornsey Journal, 30 June 1978, which stated: "A new peril for candidates fighting the marginal Hornsey constituency emerged this week with news that some of their supporters who indulge in witchcraft may switch their votes to the 'Wicca Workers Party' in the General Election. David Farrant, who lives in Muswell Hill Road, is fighting under the slogan 'Wiccans Awake'." Farrant became more confident and published a letter in the Hornsey Journal, 21 July 1978, which stated: "It is not my intention to use your letter columns to promulgate the views of the Wicca Workers Party or to become involved in futile argument with any of your readers, but having seen the opinions expressed in the letter columns of the Journal, I feel that I should set the record straight. In fact, the WWP is a serious political party and has growing support from people all over the country; including other political groups with whom we are now amalgamated." Farrant’s Wicca Worker’s Party poster bore a startling resemblance to a League of Imperial Fascists’ poster doing the rounds at that time. They had identical slogans, including: "The Future Can Be Yours If You Have The Guts To Fight For It!" These are the election posters Farrant had printed on A4 orange paper by a small firm of printers in London. The Hornsey Journal received the orange posters and they are the ones I am referring to. I am not talking about the ludicrous posters of Farrant waving a gun about which were made to look as if they had been forged by a small infant and cynically distributed by Farrant to gain sympathy, yet another media story and, as always, P-U-B-L-I-C-I-T-Y.
• Anonymous November 28, 2011
  David Farrant sticks to his lies come what may. The boy molested by Farrant's partner in crime (they stood in the dock together at the Old Bailey) was nowhere near 15 years old. That is a falsehood put out by the offender and happily repeated by his chum Farrant. Neither was the offender only 20 years old, as implied by Farrant, when the incident happened. He was older and boasted of being bisexual in some of the interviews he gave, claiming that his sexual behaviour was no different to his hero and mentor Aleister Crowley who, let's face it, supported child sacrifice in his black magic writings. As far as I can see, the VRS are no longer posting on this blog and have not done so since November 20. I am most definitely not the VRS or Vampirologist who represented them on here. If Farrant knew who I am he would probably faint on the spot.
• A Facebook user November 27, 2011
  CONT - As to the John Pope slur, Jamie, this is just more malicious propaganda being put out by the VRS (with a healthy dose of projection to boot – as verified by his contemporary colleague at Hornsey Road Swimming Baths, on film). For the record, John Pope did receive a conviction for indecency, for which he received one year’s probation. However, the situation was not as straightforward as has been presented here by the ‘VRS’. The teenaged boy was in fact aged 15, and not a young child as has implied; in fact he is on record as having attempted to extract money via blackmail from John Pope’s aunt after the offence was allegedly comitted. Without wishing to make apologetics for what was clearly a significant error of judgement, i.e. a lack of restraint by a slightly older youth when pursued by another youth who would be now only just be under the age of consent, I would like to draw attention to the fact that there was only a 5 year age gap between John Pope and the young man in question, that John Pope has no history of any similar accusations either before or since, and today is a campaigner for harsher penalties for child abusers. This is yet another tedious example of the ‘VRS’ slinging mud of the worst kind at anyone associated with myself, and hoping it will stick in the public’s perception thereof. The same can be said about these nonsensical claims about ‘no one knowing anyone more right wing than me.’ The fact that the ‘VRS’ have launched personal vendettas against friends of mine, fuelled by their racial origin, is conveniently forgotten when they start up that old tactic again. We have all read it time and time again, Sean, and it became a burnt out and wearisome tactic over a decade ago. So Jamie, I really wouldn’t waste your time arguing against the lies of these people. Most everyone knows they are just malicious lies being put out by a very small handful of people who seem to have some unhealthy obsession with myself. Nice to talk to you again on the phone today, and talk to you shortly as arranged regarding the proposed date. Ignore him, Jamie, he’s really not worth it. David.
• A Facebook user November 27, 2011
  Jamie, Thanks for pointing all these things out about Mr. Manchester’s cut ‘n pasted allegations, but there is really no need to keep retracting deliberate untruths he makes under his usual ‘Nazi’ strategy . . . keep repeating a lie long enough, and eventually some people start believing it! This is really all the bogus ‘Vampirte Research Society’ is capable of: and I say ‘bogus’ because ‘their’ comments are invariably made, or directly instigated, by its so-called ‘leader’, Mr. Manchester himself! And not only that, such propaganda is repeated in the pages of Mein Kampf, the vision of Hitlerarian polices which Mr. Manchester displays so proudly (at least, to a few selected friends, never to any public audience nowadays) on a bookcase in a small room in his house which has really become a shrine to his old far Right politics when he used to canvas for the National Front party back in 1969/70. For the record, I have never supported ANY extreme far Right or far Left political groups. When I did attempt to stand as an MP in 1978 for the Wicca Workers Party, my deposit was rejected by the Home Office because I happened to have incurred a criminal conviction, and they didn’t seem to like the fact that I had continually protested my innocence of those two said offences of desecration at Highgate Cemetery and no doubt didn’t want to allow me any official platform to carry on with my on-going campaign. As a matter of interest, most of the WWP’s manifesto was more akin to those of the Green Party, although I admit, some may have been a little ‘controversial’, for example I was proposing a change in the law that banned prostitution, arguing that sex between consenting adults (even if paid for) should be a matter of private choice and not governed by legislation. I was advocating a gradual change to the use of solar and wind power, and thus obviously condemned stock piles of nuclear energy and deterrents. I did advocate the fact that the monarchy should be given more power and thus take it away from faceless bureaucrats. I could go on, but it would really be rather pointless, as Mr Manchester would only attempt to twist these optimistic ideals into meaning that I had some secret plan for ‘world domination’ which I did not. Perhaps Mr Manchester would care to comment on the afternoon he spent at my home with my then wife and myself, suggesting these policies and eagerly going to work on a piece of A4 paper with his felt tip marker pen (a black one for a change). Of course, he will predictably deny this, but then I would remind everyone that I secretly recorded most of Mr Manchester’s private conversations when he used to visit me in person at my flat opposite Highgate Woods. I published many of the transcripts of these tapes in my book, The Seangate Tapes, and yet more in my series Man, Myth and Manchester, published (officially) and still listed on Amazon, from the late 1970s until the end of 1985. I am not inclined to make any uncut audio files available in the public domain at this stage, but should any interested parties wish to hear them for themselves for the purposes of verification, a private airing could be easily arranged.
• Timelord November 27, 2011
  David appointed a convicted child sex offender as head of the "Junior Department" of the BPOS. I thought Jamie that you would be the sort of person who wouldn't give paedos the time of day, so why does your father?
• A Facebook user November 27, 2011
  I thought I had talked about him, I mentioned his association with Herr Manchester and their nazi leaflet campaign. Can I take your silence on the matter as agreement, despite this proving Sean to be a liar (yet again). You're really not doing him any favours are you :-)) Why would a beefburger run a nursery? You're starting to sound as nutty as the drooling deacon!
• Timelord November 27, 2011
  Jamie your inherited hypocrisy knows no bounds, you don't want to talk about kiddie fiddlers associated with your sweet, innocent white haired old daddy, yet you accuse others of giving "no acknowledgement" of what YOU said. I take it attention seeking runs in the family, too....
• Timelord November 27, 2011
  I'll give you this Jamie, you really are a chip off the old block. I'm pretty sure if you came across a Paedo or a sex offender you would want to "chin him one." But I suppose if you have been infected by the morals of a beefburger, you probably would appoint him chairman of a local nursery.
• A Facebook user November 27, 2011
  It just gets better, no aknowledgment of what I said and more vitriol against David. I wonder if Seans going to keep trying his ridiculous nazi angle even though he's been exposed as creating the whole thing with his forged leaflets. And isn't he the one with the uniform and the 'secret' room by the way!!
• Anonymous November 27, 2011
  Jamie Coster is reduced to quoting Kev Demant, a collaborator of his dad's. He is referring to 1978, not ten years later! In 1978 and for some time before and after, John Pope was in full collusion with David Farrant. They had even appeared in the dock at the Old Bailey together in 1974. It stands to reason that Pope would say anything Farrant tells him to say because they are birds of a feather with an identical agenda. Pope holds Nazi views and I can provide links to site's where he still airs them. Pope has also written articles for the NF. From 1973 to the present day, with a slight blip around the time he became enamoured with Natasha McCarthy and appeared to have turned a corner, he has been in total cahoots with Farrant who amazingly put Pope in charge of the junior department of the Highgate Vampire Society. That really takes the cake!
• Anonymous November 27, 2011
  "Care to carry this on?" says the Costermonger somewhat threateningly. Yeah, I don't mind in the least. The Johnny Pope story is partially given in From Satan To Christ (published in 1988) where it states at the conclusion of that section that Pope renounced his satanic past. Sean Manchester was asked by his close friend Diana to take photographs inside St Joseph's Roman Catholic Church on Highgate Hill because Pope's finacee Natasha McCarthy worked part-time for Diana. Natasha was Roman Catholic. Pope, at the time of their wedding, stated that he had put his black magic past and all the perversion that went with it behind him. Sean Manchester gave him the benefit of the doubt, but within a matter of a year or two it became apparent that Pope had slipped back into his sinister ways and to this day remains immersed in the black arts. That is the story in a nutshell, but by all means ask Sean Manchester yourself on his blog. Or ask Natasha McCarthy if you can find her.
• A Facebook user November 27, 2011
  Oh dear Timelord, this is an extract from a page I found earlier....."To get a clearer picture of what really went on, or at least fill in some of the blanks, we must turn to the Court Transcripts from Farrant's libel action versus "The Daily Express" and others in 1980. John Pope finally admitted to having been assaulted by the police when arrested in 1973 (the incident which ultimately sparked Farrant's voodoo dolls conviction). As to the bogus Wicca Workers Party leaflets, Pope said he'd seen the one of David with the machine gun several times and that Manchester had given him copies to circulate among their friends "for a laugh". He'd also accompanied Manchester on two occasions when he pasted them up in shop fronts, including one belonging to a friend of David's. When asked by the judge, Pope responded; "Yes. I saw Sean Manchester put those leaflets up". Manchester said he'd made them himself but I could tell that anyway - Manchesters stuff is always photocopied."...... Basically Sean doctored Davids Wiccan Party election leaflets with nazi imagery then circulated them around North London with the help of John Pope. For the full article see here:http://plan9.150m.com/wwpod.htm. ...... thanks Timelord, you've done a sterling job of dropping Sean right in the shit. He must be so proud to be able to count on you :-)))
• Anonymous November 27, 2011
  Jamie Coster (Jamie Farrant) desperately wanting to impress his sick and depraved daddikins, tells Timelord "you support Sean who supports child abusers". How does Sean Manchester "support child abusers"? Is it because he is a Catholic? Or because he is a member of the Christian Church? That is the twisted logic of the Costermonger whose daddy was in cahoots with one such paedo and even took a two year rap on the pervert's behalf by threatening detectives investigating him. Sean Manchester by comparison has been very vocal against these disgusting perverts, even excommunicating members of the church who fall into that category. It is his strong stand against such unacceptable behaviour that has earned him in some people's eyes the "right-wing" tag. You can't have it both ways. Either he's one thing or the other. As for his website being disabled some years back, it was nothing to do with David Farrant's claims made on this blog. It was because he named and shamed paedophile priests on one of the site's pages. Many were already carrying convictions, but two of them persuaded Farrant to complain and together with their own complaints the site was taken down. That is the only reason it was taken down ..... because of Sean Manchester's vocal opposition to sick perverts in the church. The same perverts, let me remind you, had Farrant's full support.
• Timelord November 27, 2011
  Notice that Jamie has refused to answer his father's connections with a convicted kiddie fiddler?
• A Facebook user November 27, 2011
  Ok let me make it a bit clearer for you seeing as you either don't read this thread or you're (more likely) avoiding the whole Catholic church thing. Interestingly as well Sean Manchester (as well as indulging in several publicity stunts with John Pope) was the photographer at John Popes wedding in 1987. Care to carry this on?
• Anonymous November 27, 2011
  Nazi affiliations? The description given in David Farrant's leaflets, quotes and published correspondence in the Hornsey Journal during 1978 leaves nobody in any doubt who it is who has Nazi sympathies! Farrant even used "Wiccans Awake!" as his election campaign slogan in tha year. Worse still, he put this Nazi-style slogan beneath eagles clutching Nazi runes. Many of Farrant's close friends and supporters are Hitler worshippers. Do you want me to identify them? As for offensive language regarding negroes, I have personally heard David Farrant in recorded conversations where he is telling jokes refer to black people as "coons". Apparently this was the term he used all the time to describe them. I've heard him myself, but ask anyone who knew him really well in the past. Sean Manchester and his wife have both received loads of pornographic material by email for a period of time until it was traced back to a very close friend and collaborator of David Farrant. He knows who he is. Then it stopped after it was reported. If anyone has a question about Sean Manchester's beliefs and experiences with demons etc, I suggest they best ask him either by email or via his blog set up to anwer questions of this any other kind.
• Timelord November 27, 2011
  Eh? Is your one brain cell not functioning correctly this afternoon?
• A Facebook user November 27, 2011
  I've been through all this with Sean which is doubtless why you're trying this tack. Ok then, you support Sean who supports child abusers, albeit indirectly which is what you're accusing me of. Your move Timelord :-))
• Timelord November 27, 2011
  Jamie, no I don't, yet your father backed and supported a kiddie fiddler, to the point of doing time over it. Doesn't that make you feel sick to your stomach, your father, a sex offender sympathiser?
• Timelord November 27, 2011
  Anthony, as regards my thoughts about the Bishop's story. I think I've said before that I believe some of it to be a psychological attack on him and some of it on being an entity itself which also provided the psychological attacks, be it a vampire, ghost, even what might be called a 'demonic manifestation', and on asking the Bishop this he did deny the psychological part and has denied it again recently in the interview on Canadian Television. I'm putting it within my belief structure of looking at it from a supernatural point of view as opposed to a religious one, albeit the two could possibly be entwined. Psychological attacks from unseen hands are very common, some people blame this on 'aliens' (check out Tony Topping on Youtube) or 'governments' and there is also some blame on the supernatural / poltergeist activity.
• A Facebook user November 27, 2011
  No, do you?
• Timelord November 27, 2011
  Jamie, I find it more offensive that people support convicted child molesters, myself.
• Timelord November 27, 2011
  Jamie, direct question - do you like Kiddie Fiddlers? After all your father sent black magic dolls to two police officers who charged someone (who was later convicted) of a sex offence against a minor.
• A Facebook user November 27, 2011
  I guess someone well documented for his nazi affilitions would take that point of view.
• Anonymous November 27, 2011
  According to the Oxford Dictionary, the word mulatto means a person with one white and one black parent, and the word negro was adopted from Spanish and Portuguese and was first recorded from the mid 16th century which remained the standard term throughout the 17th-19th centuries and was used by prominent black American campaigners such as W. E. B. DuBois and Booker T. Washington in the early 20th century until the Black Power movement of the 1960s when the term "black" was favoured as a term to express racial pride. Present-day liberals with left-wing political agendas might find such terms vaguely offensive, but they are the correct terms for all that. Ironically, the people who fall into mulatto and negro categories are less likely to be offended than their white liberal counterparts who are always looking for something to whinge about. What is certainly true is that someone of Sean Manchester's vintage and background would use either term without fear or favour, and most definitely without any intent to give offence. What is offensive is the over-sensitive reaction to such terminology by those who attack anything not "modern" or popular slang.
• A Facebook user November 27, 2011
  Sean.."I would disagree because "mulatto" is a perfectly acceptable term, not at all outdated. "Negro" is also the correct term to describe people of African origin"........ bloody hell, has everybody seen this? It might be 'correct' but it's also very offensive. Like if I was to say 'Sean's a small minded, lying, racist fake that sends porn to people' It might be 'correct' but I would expect it to offend him!
• A Facebook user November 27, 2011
  Ha ha ha, so now I'm 'attacking people on religious grounds, what religions that then? Church of Bonky, don't make me laugh. If you think what I'm sayings illegal Sean why not report it, see how far you get. As for knowing my adress (not that I give a toss if you do) I'll believe that when I see it. After the fool you made of yourself with the Flemming Arms I'd have thought you'd have learned your lesson on that score :-)))
• Anonymous November 27, 2011
  I would disagree because "mulatto" is a perfectly acceptable term, not at all outdated. "Negro" is also the correct term to describe people of African origin. I would suggest that it is precisely because Sean Manchester does not harbour certain prejudices that he is comfortable with correct English usage for mixed race and black people. Don't forget he is of a generation and education where such terminology is poper English usage, unlike the slang which has replaced it. How can he "plagiarise" his own apostolic succession? This is ignorance personified. Many priests and bishops will find themselves with the same lists of succession. I am tellling you that David Farrant would do exactly what he did at the height of the anthrax scare and in his own handwriting .... just as he sent voodoo threats to police detectives in his own handwriting, signed the threats and sent them by registered post using his own return address. Why? Read my lips very carefully ......... P-U-B-L-C-I-T-Y !!! David Farrant will do absolutely anything which might bring him media attention. Regarding Jamie Coster's pathetic slurs, does he not realise that it is now a criminal offence in the UK to attack someone on religious grounds? Sean Manchester might not know Jamie Coster's address, and probably cares even less, but I certainly know it.
• A Facebook user November 27, 2011
  For Anthony, Seans 'bishop' title is titluar at best. The point I'm making is that he's not the bishop of anything except his own made up religion. There's no mention of him on either the Catholic or Old Catholic lists, he doesn't perform any religious ceremonies and he has no church or diocese (despite his claims to the contrary). He can call himself what he likes (its a free country after all) but it don't necessarily make it so.
• anthonyhogg November 27, 2011
  Anonymous, 'Cards on the table. I have met Sean Manchester. I have also encountered David Farrant. Manchester is most definitely nor dodgy', first off, thanks for that disclosure. Second, I guess you're not familiar with his dodginess. 'The claim that Manchester is a fan of the BNP is completely unsupported. He may agree with some of their policies, such as the UK leaving the EU, and not others.' Allow me to clarify: the Bishop has pilfered material from the BNP's blog, and passed it off as his own, but only enhancing it with outdated racial terms like 'mulatto' and 'negro'. It is also an indication on dodginess: for a man who complains about copyright violation - as do his followers - he certainly seems ok with plagarising material, himself. Often. In fact, it's so pervasive, his 'British Old Catholic Church' page, which details his 'lineage', was also plagiarised. 'The white powder was triggered by a crude elastic band and cardboard propeller inside the envelope which bore Farrant's instantly recognisable handwriting on its cover. SM has discussed this many times, so I am well acquainted with the facts ...' So, you're telling me, at the height of an anthrax scare, David Farrant would send - using his own home address, etc. - his nemesis and loved ones/companions an envelope filled with white power. Is that right? Jamie, re: the Rationalwiki article, as suspect as Manchester's ties to the Church are, as yourself this: if he is not a Bishop, then a) how did Kev and Chrissie Demant and Rob Brautigam witness his coronation, b) how could he have been 'laicised' by Illtyd Thomas? That's not necessarily agreeing with his 'legitimacy' as a Bishop, or, at the very least, how he fills his role - after all, pretty much anyone can get ordained, and still be considered 'legit'. You can do it online. The question is, is he a Bishop by any recognisable medium, regardless of personal feelings towards him.
• A Facebook user November 27, 2011
  And talking of laughter seans picture's proving very popular around town, although unfotunately not in the Flemming Arms which closed down months ago. Nice try though Sean, ho ho :-))))
• A Facebook user November 27, 2011
  That was taken from rationalwiki Sean (as I explained at the bottom) I'll explain again because you obviously completely misunderstood. Now pay attention and I'll say it very slowly for you with no joined up writing...ready? ...... If... you ... google ....'Bishop ....Sean ....Manchester' ... you .... can ....find ....the ...... entire ....article. See nothing to do with David whatsoever, did you get it that time Sean or should I explain it again for you, maybe with pictures!
• Anonymous November 27, 2011
  "David, you stated that The Highgate Vampire exists.... and still does - in 1997. Then later you and Medway claimed "it was a joke". You then came up with a story involving yourself summoning a deity called Pan, and expected people to believe that!" Not only Pan in an abandoned house, Timelord, but also "a satanic entity" in Highgate Cemetery which "took possession" of him! Yeah, that's much more credible than a vampire, isn't it? I've also seen the same video of Farrant mumbling mostly incoherently in his bedsit about the cemetery vampire and he was definitely serious when he ended with words confirming that he believes that a vampire roamed Highgate Cemetery. His words were not intended to be taken as a joke irrespective to what he was inwardly thinking. The viewer comes away thinking that he believed that a vampire was present in the graveyard. The footage contains black and white still images which have obviously been lifted from Sean Manchester's book. I wonder if was paid for their use? Somehow I doubt it. Whenever I want a laugh, though, I just remind myself of the spectacle of David Farrant on the Michael Cole Show (Living TV) sat alongside his buddy Kevin Carlyon who is another publicity-seeker nobody takes seriously. There he was in December wearing a pair of sandals and flared trousers that had to be seen to be believed. I cannot recall a period in history when such ridiculous flares would have been in fashion. His jacket was a charity shop job and no shame in that, but when Farrant makes an effort to look the part he descends into sheer comedy. What always makes me laugh is not just his appearance, but the young lady in the audience who commented that if the enitiy in the cemetery caught sight of Farrant it would be certainly scared of him. The whole audience broke out in raucous laughter, and so do I whenever I think of it. I suspect David Farrant missed his true vocation in life. He should have been a village idiot or perhaps with some training a circus clown.
• Anonymous November 27, 2011
  I don't think Sean Manchester will lose any sleep over the ravings of the drunken mouthpiece of someone convicted of graveyard desecration and vandalism who also received a criminal conviction for making black magic death threats to witnesses in a case where Farrant's buddy was found guilty of a sex offence against a minor. So, Jamie Coster, you know where you can shove your second-hand spew that has been spoon-fed by your dirty old man of a dad. Steptoe & Son are quite respectable, honest and upright citizens by comparison to Farrant and son. Jamie Coster can hardly be expected to grow a brain when he's the first-born son of such a complete and utter twat like David Farrant?
• A Facebook user November 27, 2011
  Just in case anybody actually believes Sean's a real bishop check this out [edit]On being a bishop In his BBC interview[3] His Grace maintained that he is a Catholic Bishop. “ I'm not a vicar, I'm a priest and a bishop. I'm a Catholic. ” —Sean Manchester in his BBC interview. The vast majority of people will understand "Catholic Bishop" to mean "Roman Catholic Bishop" and this title could cause some confusion among the Roman Catholic faithful as he does not appear in the official list of British bishops provided by "catholic-hierarchy".[12] However, further investigation reveals that in other places he claims to a Bishop, not of the Roman Catholic Church, but of of the British Old Catholic Church. And not just a member - the leader in the UK![13][14] "The British Old Catholic Church" seems to also be known as "The Apostolic Church of Jesus Christ in Great Britain" and in this organization His Grace not only has the title of Bishop but of "Primate" as well.[15] While it may be surprising that a church leader believes in vampires and the undead, one might ask if this is really any stranger than believing in creationism, exorcism, and the virgin birth - ideas that that may be obligatory under other circumstances. (So clearly being a Bishop in no way suggests that an individual won't have weird ideas, perhaps the reverse.) But the more one digs, the stranger it gets. He appears nowhere in the list of priests of the official-looking website "Catholic Apostolic Church in Europe" subtitled "The Old Catholic Church in Europe".[16] Which leaves us a bit confused about this vampire-hunting Bishop. He surely can't have invented his own religion? After following some dead ends, one comes to another cheap-looking website, that of The Church of the Holy Grail[17] presided over by none other than Bishop Manchester. Not only is Bishop Manchester a bishop of this church but he also a bishop of "Ecclesia Apostolica Jesu Christi (The Apostolic Church of Jesus Christ in Great Britain) [18]. And finally we get back to the Old Catholic Church, or at least one version of it. [19] The strange thing is that none of these churches seems to have an actual physical address. But not only is there no address, there is also no mention of any legion of highly-trained mystic priests challenging the undead under his orders, nor any mention of a faithful congregation breathlessly following his priestly, vampire-slaying antics. So exactly who he is "bishoping" at these various - apparently virtual - churches seems a little unclear. Nevertheless, it should be noted that Shawn Jean Manchester's title of "Bishop" is not in dispute here, since he can call himself the "Mushroom King" or the "Pope" for all we care. Mr. Manchester is, however, very jealous of his title. So much so that, in a legal threat to RationalWiki, he pointed out that his title has been recognised by Ofcom (see below) and that in his words he was: "enthroned at the Abbey ruins as Bishop of Glastonbury." On an unrelated note, the Church of the SubGenius awards many titles, including the rather spectacular "High Pope of the Unpredictable".[20] The full article is on 'rationalwiki' Just type in Bishop Sean Manchester on google search.
• Anonymous November 27, 2011
  "While David sending unsolicited mail to his companions and whatnot, was a dodgy move, that 'white powder' thing is pretty damn suss." Excuse me, it was a bit more than Sean Manchester's "companions" receiving malicious mail. It was his wife ... the malicious mail was addressed to her in her maiden name as Farrant obviously couldn't stomach the fact that they are married. He has never met Sean Manchester's wife or her parents, but that didn't stop him sending his malicious mail to her parents in a county hundreds of miles from London's Muswell Hill where Farrant lives. Close personal friends of Sean Manchester were also sent his vile mail, including Diana who was like a sister to SM. She had to endure Farrant's vicious scribblings in the last days of her life. This was a woman living on her own in Highgate being sent abusive pamphlets which also contained her name and private address printed in them. As for the white powder being "suss" ... why? What certainly was suspicious was it being sent by Farrant at the height of an anthrax scare in the UK where similar items containing anthrax had been sent to random people by terrorists, which is probably why the police were called in. The white powder was triggered by a crude elastic band and cardboard propeller inside the envelope which bore Farrant's instantly recognisable handwriting on its cover. SM has discussed this many times, so I am well acquainted with the facts ... unlike the person making the slur. The arrival through the post and opening of the white powder envelope was, more to the point, witnessed by three people, one of them being Sean Manchester's wife. Is the person who finds it all "suss" accusing her of lying?
• Anonymous November 27, 2011
  Cards on the table. I have met Sean Manchester. I have also encountered David Farrant. Manchester is most definitely nor dodgy. Farrant is dodgier than a nine-bob note. Some things have been said here which need challenging. The claim that Manchester is a fan of the BNP is completely unsupported. He may agree with some of their policies, such as the UK leaving the EU, and not others. This would apply to other parties as well. He belongs to no party, and has only received active support from one, the Green Party, during the time, the only time, he stood as an independent candidate in 1982 when he was accused by the Conservative candidate of being a Socialist. His campaign was on a single issue to try and preserve a cemetery threatened with development following the Tory amendment to the Burial Ground Act in the previous year. Many black bishops and priests give Sean Manchester enthusiastic support (see Facebook) where white liberal ones certainly do not. Trying to tar him as a fascist simply will not wash. He is his own man, unlike his detractors!
• anthonyhogg November 26, 2011
  Timy, 'No Jamie I am not a mouthpiece. I'm an independent person who has never met Bishop Manchester. I have merely judged the evidence and come down heavily on your daddy, mainly due to his contradictions and his story making no sense whatsoever' fair call, but let me ask you this: do you think Manchester's evidence is foolproof? Do you think he's not dodgy, himself?
• anthonyhogg November 26, 2011
  Jamie, 'For Anthony, I'm not suggesting 'Timelords a nazi, I'm saying he's just a mouthpiece' .....interesting though that the bloke who feeds him his lines (Sean) actually is one', we gotta be careful with the 'feed' term, because I've had the same accusation lobbed against me. It's designed to imply I have no conscious thought, despite the materials I consult. Another way to undermine me, of course. Even though Timey's a Manny sympathiser - which, don't get me wrong, I've cautioned him against many, many times - I don't think his info's 'fed' to him. After all, one of the sources he's mentioned here is Dave's own video. As to Manny's nazi links, I don't think those have been conclusively established, but I *can* tell you that he's a fan of the BNP. Timey, 'He suggests constantly to "trust him" but refuses to show anything to make anyone trust him. He also comes out with re-directing the issues back onto other parties, particularly when he has no where else to go', again, as he's demonstrated here time and time again. I'm still waiting to hear about my so-called 'untrue propaganda', fer instance. However, on this point - 'I feel so sorry for BSM and particularly his wife for what they have been through from Farrant and his cronies, it's despicable', that's a tricky one. It's pretty clear Manchester and Farrant have an axe to grind. Where or why this started is up for debate. While David sending unsolicited mail to his companions and whatnot, was a dodgy move, that 'white powder' thing is pretty damn suss. Neither party are blameless in this thing, which is why it's a shame it's devolved to a game of 'sides' (an angle both major parties take advantage of). Evidence is a key factor here, and that's what I'm interested in. What I've seen so far, is selective provision of info, insults and attacks. Let's try and stick to the facts here. Let's have a *discussion*, not a mud-slinging match.
• Timelord November 26, 2011
  Hi Anonymous, many people have asked for evidence from David Farrant for decades, yet he gives none. He suggests constantly to "trust him" but refuses to show anything to make anyone trust him. He also comes out with re-directing the issues back onto other parties, particularly when he has no where else to go. I feel so sorry for BSM and particularly his wife for what they have been through from Farrant and his cronies, it's despicable.
• Anonymous November 26, 2011
  Rubbish, Costermonger, because Sean Manchester is not posting here and talk about porn and all the rest is unsubstantiated lies from your daddy who has been exposed time and time again for his pornographic compulsion to take photos of young girls without their clothes. He was doing it with Vicki Jervis and publishing nude pictures of her in the press and magazines without her knowledge back in the early 70s. He's done it with countless others, including his last girlfriend Cath Fearnley who reported him to the police for threatening to publish topless photographs of her soon after they broke up. She has also exposed his lying about Sean Manchester and how he will say and do anything to sling mud at the man he envies to the point of looking like an anorexic Shrek. So if there's any porn flying about we know who is the likely candidate. If you are still banging your daddy's drum about people being Nazis, take a look closer to home. Nobody has had more Nazi-minded friends than your precious daddy who even attempted to stand in the 1978 General Election using Nazi-style posters and literature. Oh, and before you repeat his NF nonsense, Farrant asked his support to go to the NF when he was prevented from standing. Finally, I'm no more a mouthpiece than Timelord, unlike you, Jamie Coster. I tell it as I find it. You, meanwhile, just spout your dad's dirt without a single original thought of your own. Try finding out some facts! Where's the evidence to support anything you say? If someone belonged to a political party, or was involved in campaigns for a party, there will be physical evidence. You have provided none.
• Timelord November 26, 2011
  No Jamie I am not a mouthpiece. I'm an independent person who has never met Bishop Manchester. I have merely judged the evidence and come down heavily on your daddy, mainly due to his contradictions and his story making no sense whatsoever.
• A Facebook user November 26, 2011
  Just a quick observation, it seems strange to me that in all his ranting regarding his sending of porn to people, this is the first time Seans not mentioned the word libel, funny that, like I say, just an observation! For Anthony, I'm not suggesting 'Timelords a nazi, I'm saying he's just a mouthpiece' .....interesting though that the bloke who feeds him his lines (Sean) actually is one.
• A Facebook user November 25, 2011
  Timey, 'David in 1970 you would have been early to mid 20s. That's hardly young and hardly the actions of an impetuous teenager. That's a straw argument and you know it.' Not to mention presenting himself as a 'serious investigator', even though it's clear he was 'smart' enough to manipulate the media for his own benefit (see: staged pics in vaults for cash; using Victoria Jervis as a 'front', etc.). But if we're to play the 'age' card, by that logic, how are we supposed to take his investigation seriously? After all, if he was 'just a silly boy', could we not view his 'investigation' in the same light? It does have many holes, after all. 'So Gareth you dismiss one form of supernatural activity and replace it with another? Again another straw argument because the Skeptics out there will be having a field day.' You mean 'strawman'. And they *did* have a field day. Consult the 'David Farrant - psychic investigator' thread on JREFF.. 'It's like saying Eastenders exists but Coronation Street doesn't. (For Anthony: substitute Neighbours with Home and Away.) :)' Haha, yeah, I getcha. That's my point. Substituting one supernatural explanation for another: neither are scientifically proven. Therefore, we're dealing with 'faith', which, in this case, isn't all that surprising in light of David's occultic background. So, as easy as it is to dismiss vampires 'because they don't exist', we must have a rationale for doing so...and strong evidence to uphold the existence of another type of vampire, at its expense. Highgate: A Tale of Two Vampires.
• A Facebook user November 25, 2011
  For Meddy, 'You are right to say that having read a book does not tell you how many copies have sold; but since no print runs have ever been made available, no-one can tell.' Fair call, but you gotta admit the 'how can you tell how many books I've sold, if you haven't read any?' was very flawed logic. 'All that we know is that ‘The Highgate Vampire’ has so far had two editions, whereas ‘Beyond the Highgate Vampire’ has had four.' Sure, what's the significance of that? Does multiple editions of a book make it 'better'? Also, what was the print run for either? Could've been 1000 or less, for all we know. Also, the fourth edition (2002), if I'm not mistaken, has not actually been released. Publicly, at least. '...you omit to mention that, in ‘Beyond the Highgate Vampire’, he explains that he only said this “when humouring some over-zealous reporter”.' Yes, I didn't mention his twenty-one-years-later explanation in association with what I quoted, but I *have* alluded to it in this thread. But let's recap what David actually said - and what I was responding to: ''I have said all along that it did NOT, although I have never denied that some unexplained phenomenon was witnessed at Highgate Cemetery which was witnessed by a great many independent people as ‘recently’ as 2005.'' Whether humouring some reporter or not, David clearly *has* made such statements, and, as I showed, considers the 'entity' to be vampiric. His own 'regret' attests to his role in 'forming' the Highgate vampire, i.e. he 'went along' with the vampire theory he now eschews. It's there in black and white. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: I know David doesn't believe in 'bloodsucking' vampires (oh, how that qualifier annoys me), but what I *am* saying is that he's merely substituted one vampiric explanation for another - and the evidence is, quite frankly, just as flimsy. These actions are his own, as much as he's trying to palm the blame off onto others (read: Manchester aka 'a certain person'). Constant deflection. Anyhoo, now that you're here Meddy, perhaps you'd like to discuss the 6/2/1970 letter. You said you were unable to find the 'I have no knowledge in this field' paragraph in other copies - and even suggested others should stop mentioning it - but I told you *exactly* where it was (the Camden Archive) and even cited a page number (p. 26). So, my question to you is, which archives did you consult, if you were unable to find the 'missing' paragraph? And, if it is, indeed, 'missing', then how do you account for the explanations David's given for writing it?
• Timelord November 25, 2011
  So Gareth you dismiss one form of supernatural activity and replace it with another? Again another straw argument because the Skeptics out there will be having a field day. It's like saying Eastenders exists but Coronation Street doesn't. (For Anthony: substitute Neighbours with Home and Away.) :)
• Timelord November 25, 2011
  David in 1970 you would have been early to mid 20s. That's hardly young and hardly the actions of an impetuous teenager. That's a straw argument and you know it.
• Timelord November 25, 2011
  Anthony, you know I'm not, Brendan knows I'm not, Bishop Manchester and Vampirologist know I'm not, yet it's not enough for Farrant's evidence file! But as I've said it's a great way of deflecting things, they abuse you on the blog or on Youtube, and think it's abuse to call anyone else arguing points with them BSM. Although I don't take it as an insult personally, it's just pitiful.
• A Facebook user November 25, 2011
  For Hoggy: You are right to say that having read a book does not tell you how many copies have sold; but since no print runs have ever been made available, no-one can tell. All that we know is that ‘The Highgate Vampire’ has so far had two editions, whereas ‘Beyond the Highgate Vampire’ has had four. I must point out that, when David Farrant said (Ham & High, 6 March 1970) that, if the apparition at Highgate Cemetery really turned out to be anything like a “vampire”, he would be prepared to take any means necessary, you omit to mention that, in ‘Beyond the Highgate Vampire’, he explains that he only said this “when humouring some over-zealous reporter”. You have to have met these kind of people to realise how persistent they can be until you say what they want to hear, and it is easy, particularly when you are young, to give way under that kind of pressure. When he said, in ‘Beyond the Highgate Vampire’ that the mysterious deaths of the foxes might be due to the entity, he did not mean that a corpse was really coming out of its grave, only that, under certain conditions, a supernatural being may be able to interact with the physical world, as reported for example in poltergeist cases. A vampire does not personally throw crockery around a kitchen. Gareth J. Medway, Vice-President, BPOS.
• anthonyhogg November 25, 2011
  Jamie, 'Oh and by the way 'Timelord' I accept you're not Sean if you makes you feel better,in the same way Sin Fein isn't the IRA and the Hitler Youth isn't the nazi party!' Don't forget Godwin's Law, mate!
• anthonyhogg November 25, 2011
  Oh, and just in case you play the illogical 'ancient newspaper reports' angle, again, David, here's some of your recent statements on the vampiric nature of your entity, by way of the 2002 edn of 'Beyond the Highgate vampire': 'It was interesting hypothesis [the vampire theory], and one which had not been overruled by the author himself. In fact, I held the view that as the phenomenon seemed definitely malevolent by nature, it was quite conceivable that it possessed sufficient power to have some affect upon 'weaker forms of intelligence's' - such as animals.' ... ' Whatever the case, it is reasonable to suppose that the Highgate phenomenon could have been connected with stories of vampirism.' ... 'It was therefore quite feasible to assume that the cemetery phenomenon was an evil entity that had been summoned up as the direct result of a Satanic ritual or alternatively, that the Satanists had succeeded in 'awakening' the latter-day vampire which had laid dormant for so long.' In other words, you've substituted one vampire for another (which is why you repetitiously mention 'bloodsucking' when discussing vampires). Oh, and here's something you confessed earlier this year, on The Supernatural World forum: 'The worst I did was to go along with another person's innane wild assertions about a 'blood-sucking vampire', but again, this was only because this was the 'angle' the Press and television wanted at the time - 'vampires' apparently selling more newspapers or attracting more interested audiences for TV.' So, like I said before, you're just as responsible for enshrining the vampire in popular consciousness as Manchester is.
• anthonyhogg November 25, 2011
  David, 'I have said all along that it did NOT, although I have never denied that some unexplained phenomenon was witnessed at Highgate Cemetery which was witnessed by a great many independent people as ‘recently’ as 2005.' You have referred to the 'unexplained phenomena' (which, ironically, you have a non-scientific explanation for: an entity that 'travels' via ley lines) as vampiric or, explicitly as a 'vampire' on multiple occasions. 'Neither have I ever supported them. If you disagree, then please show us where I have made such statements?!?' No worries. From the Ham & High, 6/3/1970: "Much remains unexplained, but what I have recently learnt all points to the vampire theory being the most likely answer. Should this be so, I for one am prepared to pursue it, taking whatever means might be necessary so that we can all rest." And let's not forget vampire-hunting 'vigil' you re-enacted for '24 hours' (15/10/1970). 'How could you know if 'Sean's books' sell better than mine, 'Timelord', when you have just admitted here that you 'have never read anything I've written'. Sales figures. Not reading a book doesn't mean you can't say how well it's sold. By the way David, speaking of claims: you're yet to qualify the 'untrue propaganda' I spread. Five things, David. That's all you have to provide. Enough weaselling, already. If you can't do it, then retract your statement. FOR ALL: make sure you log out after you've signed in here. I've noticed a few 'You are logged in as' before posting on here. Must be some kinda glitch.
• Anonymous November 25, 2011
  Strange how these crawling insects are blind to anything other than the hatred they harbour for a man they do not know. Poisonous parasites who serve no useful purpose, as far as I can see. I am not going to even dignify Jamie Coster with a response to his babyish babbling which has been spoon-fed to him by his decrepit dad with a gammy foot, gangrenous mind and grotesque persona.
• Timelord November 25, 2011
  Once again Mr Farrant is making claims without any foundation or evidence whatsoever! Your ex girlfriend publicly said that you put her up to making certain claims too, but you never answer that claim 'Trust me' Dave!
• A Facebook user November 25, 2011
  And from a man of the cloth as well, tut tut Sean :-)
• A Facebook user November 25, 2011
  ooooh, looks like someones having a hissy fit :-))) are you gonna stamp your feet and sceam till you're sick :-)))))
• Anonymous November 25, 2011
  How easy it is to make spurious and damaging allegations about a person you are hell-bent on maligning and harassing in a sick and stomach-churning way. Sean Manchester has done none of the things you vindictively attribrute to him and there is no worth in you claiming otherwise when you provide not a single piece of evidence. It is certainly true that Catherine Fearnley and Barbara Green went along with your vile behaviour for a while, but your ex-girlfriend Catherine Fearnley has since withdrawn everything she alleged against Sean Manchester, admitting that you, Farrant, put her up to it and that she now regrets everything done on your behalf. Patsy Langley is still very much in cahoots with you and still goes along with your filthy tricks on someone who ignores you. None of it is true that is being claimed against Sean Manchester and you know it. You are not fit to tie his shoe-laces, Farrant. You are a complete and total liar, a disgusting piece of scum who attracts other scum like flies to faeces. You have contributed to the world nothing but deception, disharmony and depravity. You are the closest thing to a vampiric parasite anyone here has probably encountered.
• A Facebook user November 24, 2011
  Not so much a collection, Jamie, in his own home, at least. He was just sending this material from sources he had re-directed it from after he had located it on the Internet. Why was he looking for it? Well that really is anoher question! David
• A Facebook user November 24, 2011
  He must have quite a collection if he can afford to be so generous with it :-)
• A Facebook user November 24, 2011
  I didn't want to mention this, Jamie, but he also sent hard porn to Catherine and Barbara Green on a regular basis. I understand Barbara Green opened this and then deleted it just to get rid of it (and I can't blame her for that!). I told Catherine, however, not to delete it but just to return the junk back to its sender unopened. She did so, as it arrived and within a few weeks it ceased. Catherine swore out a statement to this effect for the Court, and I still retain a copy of this which I published in my book "Pact with the Devil" so everybody could be reminded of its content. This statement was also submitted to the Tottenham Police in 2007 to counteract yet more of 'Sean's' unsunstantiated allegations against myself, and, after investigation, it was realised that his allegations had been fabricated, and Sean's case against myself collapsed (just as his first fabricated complaint againt myself had been dismissed on April 23rd 2002). Not very nice people to have to deal with, Jamie. But I hardly need to tell you that! David
• A Facebook user November 24, 2011
  Oh and by the way 'Timelord' I accept you're not Sean if you makes you feel better,in the same way Sin Fein isn't the IRA and the Hitler Youth isn't the nazi party!
• A Facebook user November 24, 2011
  Timelord November 24, 2011 "Passing the buck is a particular David Farrant trait I have noticed. If you ask him a question about say the colour of apples, he will answer it with bile about Bishop Manchester. If you ask him the time, he will answer it with more bile about Bishop Manchester. Or suggest that you, me and Uncle Tom Cobley are Bishop Manchester too"......................... I think 'Timelord' you should read back through Seans posts on here or (anywhere else for that matter) before making that kind of statement. And are you having a laugh, Seans got a list of usernames as long as my arm, the difference between him and anyone else on here is that he's scared to come out from behind them. Unfortunately its a bit late now and he just looks more of a coward and a liar, with every fake post! .....In answer to Seans question from a couple of days back, I know exactly how it feels to have stuff written/sent to friends and family. He did send hard core porn to Patsys employers after all, surely he hasn't forgotton about that!
• A Facebook user November 24, 2011
  How could you know if 'Sean's books' sell better than mine, 'Timelord', when you have just admitted here that you 'have never read anything I've written'. You are full of your own contradictions, 'Timelord'! As for saying that my allusion to the Highgate 'vampire' were a 'joke', this was only a satirical remark at the end of my film that intended to throw into disbelief the remarks of another individual who was claiming that 'vampires' really existed. Only a minority of stupid people could have taken it any other way ; apparently, you must be one of them! David Farrant, President, BPOS
• Timelord November 24, 2011
  I wonder if you are just bitter that BSM's books sell better than your own efforts!
• Timelord November 24, 2011
  David, you stated that The Highgate Vampire exists.... and still does - in 1997. Then later you and Medway claimed "it was a joke". You then came up with a story involving yourself summoning a deity called Pan, and expected people to believe that! Those in glass houses (or bedsits!) shouldn't throw stones! If you tell people that The Highgate Vampire existed, then people will believe it, particularly if you do it in the dramatic way that you did in your dodgy Video CD production.
• A Facebook user November 24, 2011
  If anybody is ‘making a joke’ of the Highgate ‘vampire’ it is yourself, ‘Timelord’, in accepting it could have even existed! I have said all along that it did NOT, although I have never denied that some unexplained phenomenon was witnessed at Highgate Cemetery which was witnessed by a great many independent people as ‘recently’ as 2005. The only ‘joke’ – if you like – are the claims made by certain people that this entity was in reality a ‘blood-sucking vampire’ and tried to turn it into their conceptions of one: including one that supposedly got ‘staked’, and its disciple that allegedly turned into a ‘giant spider’! Now, personally, I believe THAT is funny, as I imagine a lot of other people do as well. But we must remember, that it was not I who made such statements. Neither have I ever supported them. If you disagree, then please show us where I have made such statements?!? I do not think you will be able to, simply because I never made them! David Farrant, President, British Psychic and Occult Society.
• Timelord November 24, 2011
  It might be worth digging out some court records of David Farrant to see just what "evidence" and "proof" he put into his defence. I hope he did more than he shows on the internet!
• Timelord November 24, 2011
  Passing the buck is a particular David Farrant trait I have noticed. If you ask him a question about say the colour of apples, he will answer it with bile about Bishop Manchester. If you ask him the time, he will answer it with more bile about Bishop Manchester. Or suggest that you, me and Uncle Tom Cobley are Bishop Manchester too.
• anthonyhogg November 24, 2011
  Well, exactly. He even said 'I am not obliged to 'prove' anything to you Anthony'', which is a strange claim from a) and 'investigator' b) coming from someone making spurious claims about me! lol In terms of his statement on the vampire, it's not so much that his claims about its reality are contradictory (it's obvious he was treating it as a bit of a joke), but that he's trying to pass the buck over to Manchester, repeatedly. As much as he tries to deny it, there's sufficient evidence to show that he helped 'create' the vampire, as much much as Sean. His own video (which I linked to earlier in this thread), proves that. He's even previously admitted that one of his biggest 'regrets' was going along with the whole thing. He's got to own up to his own responsibility with this thing, as much as Manny does. But the great irony is, that David actually *does* believe in vampires. Not 'bloodsucking' ones, as he repeatedly clarifies, but the psychic variety.
• Timelord November 24, 2011
  It seems Anthony that if David says anything we are supposed to just "trust him", despite the various contradictory statements he has made over the years. If you remind him about his statements regarding the existence of the vampire, for instance, he now claims that such statements "were a joke". Using that claim as a vanguard, it's safe to say that everything he says "is a joke", meaning he has no credibility as any sort of researcher, nor any credibility within the case of The Highgate Vampire.
• anthonyhogg November 24, 2011
  With due fairness, Timey, while Manchester might not have mentioned him in interviews, he *has* frequently mentioned him in publications, and his blog - 'Aftermath of the Highgate vampire' (2007) (now largely subsumed into 'In the shadow of the Highgate vampire), was nearly all about David. This, of course, is a duplicitous move - avoid *direct* confrontation, claim he doesn't want to be involved in any project in which David participates (including Ellis' article) - but then complain *afterwards*, when David puts his fingerprints over everything. Not good enough. But, as David's shown here, and other places, just because he's 'present', doesn't mean he doesn't engage in dodgy tactics of his own. For instance, his continued avoidance of qualifying exactly *what* 'untrue propaganda' I spread, not to mention his insinuations that I'm in 'cahoots' with the VRS. I've asked him to list five 'false' things I've spread: and he can't even come up with one!
• Timelord November 24, 2011
  David, in the mists of your hatred and bile you miss one simple fact - BSM has not mentioned you in any interview for decades. Also you are making yet another claim that BSM is posting as the VRS. Proof? Evidence? Given you have accused me for months of being BSM, your claims are just 'pissing in the wind'.
• anthonyhogg November 24, 2011
  David, stop trying to weasel your way out. You made the claim against me first, went out of your way to try and discredit me, and still lob snide comments my way. Put your money where your mouth is, for a change: if I spread 'untrue propaganda', then name five things about the case that I've said, which are wrong. Go on. As to this malarkey: '...shed much more light on the VRS claims that you seem to be supporting', what on earth are you basing that on? If you're still trying to suggest I'm 'in cahoots' with the VRS, that's quite pathetic, especially as you know I'm critical of both sides. Let's take the politics out of this, Dave. Focus on the claims. Focus on what you've said. You've made a charge against me, now prove it.
• A Facebook user November 24, 2011
  “The thing is, this shouldn't be exclusive information: the earliest reference I've found - from yourself - in regards to these specific claims, is 1975. That's 36 years you've had to qualify the statements. Which begs the question: if you just said the sources were 'uncheckable', then how is it *now* that you've got the sources? Looks like you decided to qualify your claims *long after* you made them. Interesting.” [Your comments Anthony, not mine]. No. The real question remains, Anthony: why have you not checked out the current 21ast century sources I gave you? Regarding the Police, the Bournmouth Magistrates Court and the records of the Criminal Prosecution Service (CPS) regarding the false allegation that the ‘Vampire Research Society’ made against myself? Forget Victorian ghost sources (your words); why have you not checked into modern sources I gave you (from 2002) that could otherwise shed much more light on the VRS claims that you seem to be supporting. You have still not answered this. Why? People here might well be forgiven in assuming you are deliberately avoiding this important fact. If you are not, then why have you carefully avoided not giving us all an answer? David Farrant, President, BPOS
• anthonyhogg November 24, 2011
  'You still 'squealed' in indignation and virtually caller me a liar for not giving you these. Sorry Anthony, not that; its just called exclusivity and a writers licence. You just couldn't seem to understand that . . . ie that if you could not ccomprehend the facts I had already given you on the case, then why should I supply any more.' Again, misrepresenting, David: you said that long *after* I'd been asking for the sources. Adding them to your new book was something you tacked on later. The thing is, this shouldn't be exclusive information: the earliest reference I've found - from yourself - in regards to these specific claims, is 1975. That's 36 years you've had to qualify the statements. Which begs the question: if you just said the sources were 'uncheckable', then how is it *now* that you've got the sources? Looks like you decided to qualify your claims *long after* you made them. Interesting. 'Why? Is is perhaps because they could prove the truth of what I've been saying? Or conversely, because these do not 'fit in' with your predetermined views about the Highgate case?' You need to read-through my responses more clearly: your bias is showing. Again, you're acting as if I doubted the claim. Where did I do that? As to 'pre-determined views', exactly what are they? I asked you to name five things I've said about the case which are 'untrue propaganda'. Sure, you waffled on, but you didn't even provide *one*. Go on David, you can do it. Otherwise, do the right thing and retract the statement.
• anthonyhogg November 24, 2011
  David, 'They can (except for a very small minority of misguided people, such as Anthony Hogg). In fact, that offer still goes . . .' If you can't even say *how* or *why* I'm misguided, why make pathetic digs like that? It only undermines yourself. 'So what Anthony? You were referring to ancient almost uncheckable sources for my statements (in my books) that stories of a ghost sighted at Highgate Cemetery could be traced back to the Vuictorian [sic] Era.' Uncheckable? Interesting. Interesting because you also said these were 'facts'. If they're uncheckable, how can you claim they're factual? As to being 'ancient', how is their age at all relevant, if you've also used them to 'prove' your case? It's interesting that you also describe the 1970s newspaper reports as 'ancient', too, even though you *also* use them to 'prove' your case. I guess they're ancient when it's convenient or when they're prone to scrutiny. In terms of the sources you did give - i.e. not ones referenced in your books, but ones you'd latterly pulled off the 'net (even though you criticise me for 'Internet research') - they *were* red herrings. Why? Because they didn't address your specific claims. I even quoted your claims to you, several times, just to show they did not match. But you know that, of course, so, yet again, you're misrepresenting the issue. For those interested in the Victorian sources saga -and how difficult it was to get David to reveal his sources, not to mention the way he repeatedly weaselled out of it - here's the chronicle of my attempts: http://dawwih.blogspot.com/2011/07/victorian-era-sources-saga.html Despite his claims that I spread 'untrue propaganda' (yet, still unable to qualify that statement), it shows that I don't simply accept such info, hook, line and sinker, not to mention the trouble I go to, to verify such info.
• A Facebook user November 23, 2011
  FOR ANTHONY "I see you've dodged my query, yet again, in saying what 'untrue propaganda' I spread, and have instead tried to derail the convo to Timey. I'll make this easier on you, David: name five things I've said about the case, which are untrue. If I do 'nothing but' spread 'untrue propaganda', that shouldn't be too hard for you. So? " 'SO?' So what Anthony? You were referring to ancient almost uncheckable sources for my statements (in my books) that stories of a ghost sighted at Highgate Cemetery could be traced back to the Vuictorian Era. And so they can, as with other sites in the Highgate area. I gave you some but you conveniently stated that these were 'red herrings' and not what you wanted. I replied that I woul;d be naming ALL my sources in my next book on that subject. You still 'squealed' in indignation and virtually caller me a liar for not giving you these. Sorry Anthony, not that; its just called exclusivity and a writers licence. You just couldn't seem to understand that . . . ie that if you could not ccomprehend the facts I had already given you on the case, then why should I supply any more. You couldn't seem to understand that either, and yet further 'squealing' emerged to the effect that I was 'hiding' something from you - when in fact, I was not. The subject of my books "Man, Myth and Manchester" emerged yet again, and you made furthe comments, mostly inspired by your so-called mate 'Timey'. I explained all this; mainly why those books had to be written and circulated. THAT was the main point, to which you reverted (yet once again) to your obsession with 'Victorian ghost sources'! I gave you 21st century sources via the Courts, the Police and the Criminal Prosecution Service that could provide material or scientic evidence to back up what I say. Amazingly, you say - or imply - that these are not relevant either! and, as I previously predicted, saw no reason to check up on these. Why? Is is perhaps because they could prove the truth of what I've been saying? Or conversely, because these do not 'fit in' with your predetermined views about the Highgate case? whatever, both yourself and "Timelord" can check what I say, but you both dismiss this as being seemingly irrevalant. Do try and grow up, Anthony, for God's sake! David Farrant, President, BPOS.
• A Facebook user November 23, 2011
  'FOR TIMELORD' "Funny that he picks me up on not wanting to read "Man, Myth and Manchester' yet ignores the facts that I have listened to his radio 'interviews' which seem to be a bunch of losers talking like Beavis and Butthead, spitting bile at a man who isn't there to answer himself and refusing to ask David any pertinent questions on the case for fear of upsetting him or showing him up as a fraud. It's cowardice David." Yes, I agree; it is cowardice,'Timelord' - cowardice of the worst kind! For Mr. Manchester has always repeatedly refused to meet myself live in person on radio broadcasts after being invited by them to do so. I have always agreed incidentally which can be confirmed by these programmes themselves. As for "spitting bile", well Mr Manchester is doing it to myself all the time - invariably by personally writing all this bile HIMSELF and then hiding behind invented aliases . . . aka the "Vampire Research Society". Mr Manchester must think people are incredubility stupdid if he thinks most people can't see that. They can (except for a very small minority of misguided people, such as Anthony Hogg). In fact, that offer still goes . . . let him come on any live radio or TV broadcast with myself. He could ask me any questions he wanted and these could be answered live. But in return, I would just ask that he answers a few of my own. About his previous career canvasing for the National Front Party in the late 1960's, and other claims he made about 'staking vampires', one of which even changed into a 'giant spider'! (Mr Manchester's own words, 'Timelord, not mine) or so he claims in his self published book. David Farrant, President, British Psychic and Occult Society
• Timelord November 23, 2011
  Interesting to note that the Legal Deposit Libraries Act 2003 which superseded the legal compulsion to send a printed publication to the British Library is no longer being enforced (Copyright Act 1911), although the law remains in place. In any case David, I thought you were an Anarchist at heart, therefore why would you follow statutes?
• Timelord November 23, 2011
  Funny that he picks me up on not wanting to read "Man, Myth and Manchester' yet ignores the facts that I have listened to his radio 'interviews' which seem to be a bunch of losers talking like Beavis and Butthead, spitting bile at a man who isn't there to answer himself and refusing to ask David any pertinent questions on the case for fear of upsetting him or showing him up as a fraud. It's cowardice David. At least he now acknowledges that I haven't read his pamphlets (with an ISBN!) that I can't be the man who he has constantly suggested I am.
• anthonyhogg November 23, 2011
  David, 'FOR ‘TIMELORD’ I am not answering any of your points, Timelord, simply because they are invalid.' Actually, he did make a point about the ISBN. It's only now that you're admitting that sending such material off to universities and such is 'REQUIRED BY LAW', which I told you a long time ago: it's called legal deposit. Beforehand, you were making it seem as if these were 'professional' and/or 'academic' works by association. 'You say here you have never read any of my books or anything I have ever written (saving here or on The Supernatural World), so you could have no idea of the libel and similar contradictions being put out by bogus ‘Vampire Research Society’.' Note 'similar contradictions', meaning, you haven't denied your own. That's the point. 'Well, they do it, too!' is not really a valid counter-argument. 'But you are certainly showing yourself inyour true colours here but admitting you have never read anything ‘I’ve ever written’ – “Man, Myth and Manchester” for example! Well, lets just see if your ‘mate’ Anthony Hogg thinks it is relevant to check the sources I gave. I doubt it. But then maybe there may be some hope for him yet!' Fortunately for him, many of your writings - including your statements here - appear online. While I think it's important to check sources (but which ones and to prove what point, exactly?), I've found from reading your works, that much of it is repetitious. Even the first vol. of your autobiog is stitched together from two of your other works. A lot of what you've said in the books, has been repeated online. Honestly, Timelord could save himself a quid. He's also right about the contradictions found in your work. As to checking sources - do you mean like the time I had to repeatedly ask you for the sources you consulted, which you used to claim that the cemetery has been haunted since Victorian times? And remember how evasive you were on that topic? Offering me a fake deal (in which I would discuss my spiritual views, for some reason, and you *might* share the source?) - which you reneged on? Then, you copy and pasted some stuff you found on the 'net - after criticising me for 'internet research', no less - which didn't even match the descriptions for Victorian hauntings you've given? Oh, and by the way - I see you've dodged my query, yet again, in saying what 'untrue propaganda' I spread, and have instead tried to derail the convo to Timey. I'll make this easier on you, David: name five things I've said about the case, which are untrue. If I do 'nothing but' spread 'untrue propaganda', that shouldn't be too hard for you. So?
• A Facebook user November 23, 2011
  FOR ‘TIMELORD’ I am not answering any of your points, Timelord, simply because they are invalid. You say here you have never read any of my books or anything I have ever written (saving here or on The Supernatural World), so you could have no idea of the libel and similar contradictions being put out by bogus ‘Vampire Research Society’. All I did was to explain here why my books Man, Myth and Manchester were written. I gave the reasons why and invited people to check if they didn’t believe me. That’s all. You apparently don’t believe me. Well, that’s fine by me: don’t believe me! It doesn’t make any difference to myself. But you are certainly showing yourself inyour true colours here but admitting you have never read anything ‘I’ve ever written’ – “Man, Myth and Manchester” for example! Well, lets just see if your ‘mate’ Anthony Hogg thinks it is relevant to check the sources I gave. I doubt it. But then maybe there may be some hope for him yet! David Farrant, President, BPOS
• Timelord November 23, 2011
  David, your many radio interviews are full of 'defamatory statements'. No doubt your work is too, which thankfully I have never read, but probably don't need to. Beyond that, your work is also incredibly contradictory.
• Timelord November 23, 2011
  And this is where the argument all gets circular again, with David making claims, people asking him for evidence, he ignores these requests and then prints defamation about BSM, Anthony or indeed anyone else who "doesn't support him 100%." As for his repetitive "all my books have ISBN numbers" which is meaningless as an empty piece of paper. You can get an ISBN for a piece of soiled toilet paper if you wanted too - at a cost. Although I suspect most of David's work would be too shiny for that purpose and no doubt I'd be wiping more on than taking off.
• anthonyhogg November 23, 2011
  All your predictions - as your previous comments - are made without even giving me a chance to do so, nor any indication that I was going to do so beforehand. Checking your 'facts' does not vindicate you from your other actions, nor did I dispute what you said about this particular issue. You're acting as if I'm accusing you of lying about it. I'm not. Get a grip. I will say, however, that you *do* engage in defamatory actions and that the feud is most definitely not one-sided as you pretend it to be. I've shown that. Dylan knows it. As to not attacking my person, you have been. You've even made an accusation that I spread 'untrue propaganda', yet when I ask you *what* am I spreading, you refuse to answer. Repeatedly dodged it. For example, you began with this: 'Can I just point out, that Tony Hogg knows absolutely nothing about events that took place in Highgate in the late 60s / early 70s. He is only repeating sensational newspaper reports as supplied to him by Mr Sean Manchester when he (Tony Hogg) was a member of one of Mr Manchester’s numerous message boards devoted to attacking myself back in 2006.' Yet, not only were the boards *not* devoted to attacking you (a range of topics were discussed there) you also *knew* that I was banned from the same groups. You knew that before you posted here - and you knew it before you posted similar references on other forums, too. That is deliberately misrepresenting me and my affiliations (which I don't have). As to knowing 'nothing', clearly a lie as my blogs show and the fact that I rely on a variety of sources - including your own. That is ad hominem stuff. Lies. Misrepresentation. So, again, how exactly does it make you 'better' than what you're railing against? Hint: it doesn't. And that's clear when you dodge many of my points (the type of articles you print as 'rebuttals', your involvement in the feud, the 'targets' of your material, etc.), but now rail against me for not *immediately* checking on a police report - which I didn't dispute in the first place. Relax, man. Take a deep breath.
• A Facebook user November 22, 2011
  I am not involved in 'defamatory accusations', Anthony, I merely asked you to check the sources I gave (i.e. with the Bournemouth Magistrastes' Court, the Bournmouth Police and the Criminal Prosection Service (CPS)' before coming back here with all repetitious - and frankly boring - waffle. Have you done do? I strongly suspect the answer is 'no'! 'Feuds' as you put it, do not - or should not - enter into these legal facts. As predicted, you have not even attempted to check your facts! And you wonder why I will not answer your other notions about some preconceived 'feud'! I have given you all the legal facts - so why haven't you checked these out first before posting your repeated 'waffle' here about some non-relevand 'feud'? What about the legal examples I have given? And why are you ignoring this point?! I think THAT is the question that really needs answering! David Farrant NB And I am not 'attacking' your person, as you like to continually keep saying - just your misguided comments!
• anthonyhogg November 22, 2011
  NB: 'Why? Because it address what I've said, and attacks my person' should read 'Because it doesn't address what I've said, and attacks my person'.
• anthonyhogg November 22, 2011
  David, 'People such as Anthony Hogg (and the person calling himself “Timelord”) seem totally unaware of this fact; indeed I doubt very much that they would have even seen much of the malicious material being disseminated', speaking on my own behalf, I'm aware that the VRS site (and Holy Grail site, for that matter) contains much anti-You stuff. How much of it is accurate, remains to be seen, of course. Indeed, it's the claims and counter-claims and their veracity which I seek to verify. However, suggesting this is a one-man feud is obviously false. A feud, after all is 'is a long-running argument or fight between parties' (Wikipedia). And that's what this is. Claims, counter-claims, involvement of the police, duels, publications, etc. That's a feud. 'As a further point of interest, none of the booklets were sent out anonymously, but signed by myself for proper identification. I still have a copy of a handwritten accompanying letter I wrote to my friend the late Mrs Diana Brewester requesting payment for the book. I enclosed an invoice with its dispatch but perhaps not surprisingly I never got paid.' Not surprising, at all, as you didn't say she'd ordered the booklet. 'A few Complimentary were sent out to individual people who may have known him, but this was only to rebut lies that these people had almost certainly seen on the internet that had been posted out ad infinitum by the ‘VRS’. ' Perhaps so, but to put the shoe on the other foot: if someone sent your loved ones and associates (potentially) defamatory booklets (whether true or not), we've really gotta question the motives of the sender, because that is definitely suggestive of a campaign. When you name the publication *after* your enemy, that's when things start getting a little personal. Plus, I've read an article you wrote for 'The Highgate Vampire Casebook', which makes lewd suggestions about the nanny who bathed the Bishop as a child ('The voluptuous nanny or (alternative title) "banters at bathtime!"'). When you publish stuff like that, you're going beyond mere rebuttals. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying you shouldn't have a right of reply - you're entitled to it as much as anyone else here - it's all in the execution. And in those cases, you've gotta be damn careful you don't engage in similar tactics as to those you're accusing... like this, for instance: 'nd finally, Mr Anthony Hogg (and strictly along the lines of the ‘meticulous researcher’ into these matters you proclaim to be), may I suggest that if you doubt any of the facts I have quoted, you first check the sources I have quoted above, BEFORE getting back here and boring more people with your endlessly repeated waffle! David Farrant.' That is an attack. Why? Because it address what I've said, and attacks my person. You're yet to deny my the veracity of my comments and you're yet to establish exactly what 'untrue propaganda' I supposedly spread. You've also used similar ad hominem attacks against me as Vampy's done. You've also misrepresented me (by making allusions to my past membership of VRS-affiliated message boards...but then deliberately omitting that I was banned from them), etc. In this particular instance, you're suggesting I don't do my research, because...I haven't checked out something you've only just given statements on - but statements I didn't deny, either. You need to focus on a topic at a time, rather than employ a scattershot attack. In this sense, you and the VRS, its affiliates and various sockpuppets, are two sides of the same coin. Simply put, if you engage in defamatory accusations, ad hominem attacks and go out of your way to discredit someone (like me), while dodging their points, exactly how does that make you the 'better' one in this situation?
• A Facebook user November 21, 2011
  CONT. - Funnily enough (or perhaps not so funny!) Mr Manchester made a complaint to the Bournemouth Police in late 2001 that I had sent him ‘white powder’ and I was arrested for this fabricated charge made by Mr Manchester. Interestingly, the white powder had somehow found its way, complete with a weighty booby-trap, into one of the very same envelopes that I had posted to Mr Manchester’s address, but the real contents (i.e. the booklet itself) were completely missing; although copies of the booklets were later sent in their entirety to the Bournemouth Police and the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS). This case came before a stipendary magistrate in March 2003 but the charges were dropped by the CPS after I had explained all the circumstances of this vendetta against myself and the Society. I decided to relist the case for hearing at Bournemouth Magistrates Court and this was heard on April 23rd 2003 and I was officially acquitted of all these false allegations and awarded substantial costs. I understand my acquittal was subsequently denied by the so-called ‘VRS’, but it nevertheless remains on record as does the other documentation. If any readers here are in any doubt of this, then I would invite them to directly contact the Bournemouth Police, the CPS or the Bournemouth Court, for additional clarification. So no, Jamie, please don’t believe all this malicious propaganda. The booklets were only published in the first place to rebut lies being put out by the bogus ‘VRS’. And finally, Mr Anthony Hogg (and strictly along the lines of the ‘meticulous researcher’ into these matters you proclaim to be), may I suggest that if you doubt any of the facts I have quoted, you first check the sources I have quoted above, BEFORE getting back here and boring more people with your endlessly repeated waffle! David Farrant.
• A Facebook user November 21, 2011
  Just to settle all this nonsense here Jamie concerning my books, in particular one publication entitled “Man, Myth and Manchester” released in 2000 as a nine part series which ran until 2005, let me cut through all the malicious allegations being spread by Mr. Sean Manchester (aka the ‘Vampire Research Society which he runs as a virtual one-man band’), let me clarify this issue: The MMM books were NOT an underground publication in any way, but a series of booklets released out of necessity during this period to counteract a deluge of lies being spread on the Internet, and elsewhere, by the alleged ‘Vampire Research Society’ who were conducting a malicious vendetta (indeed, still are) against myself and other Society members or my friends and associates. I refer in particular to the huge Website Freeserve to whom this libellous material was being distributed on a regular basis. The booklets had to be put into print to retract all this material and to set the record straight for the public good. People such as Anthony Hogg (and the person calling himself “Timelord”) seem totally unaware of this fact; indeed I doubt very much that they would have even seen much of the malicious material being disseminated – although this material ran into over 100 A4 printed pages after these had been sent to me by Freeserve. In the end, following repeated complaints by myself, this ‘Vampire Research Society’ site was taken down, but I decided to write the booklets in any event as the ‘VRS’ were still continuing to disseminate this material to other Internet outlets in ‘cut and pasted’ forms (which ‘they’ still continue to do). When each of the series was published, it was given an official ISBN and sent to the six major University Libraries – as required by Law. Nothing ‘clandestine’ about its released – indeed, it is still officially available on Amazon and can be ordered over the counter at all good bookshops. As to the allegation that it was sent to harass Mr. Manchester, this is not the case at all. A few Complimentary were sent out to individual people who may have known him, but this was only to rebut lies that these people had almost certainly seen on the internet that had been posted out ad infinitum by the ‘VRS’. As a further point of interest, none of the booklets were sent out anonymously, but signed by myself for proper identification. I still have a copy of a handwritten accompanying letter I wrote to my friend the late Mrs Diana Brewester requesting payment for the book. I enclosed an invoice with its dispatch but perhaps not surprisingly I never got paid. For some reason when recounting this story Mr Manchester always fails to inform readers that I also knew Mrs Brewester in a personal capacity and had done for several years (so where is the ‘harassment’ here? I also sent complimentary copies to Mr Manchester and his wife, and signed them in a similar fashion, never attempting to disguise my identity in any way. CONTINUED ABOVE
• A Facebook user November 21, 2011
  I have never heard so much repetive waffle in all my life abouit the publication of some of my books. They are all official and registered publications, Jamie, including the series "Man, Myth and Manchester" first released in 2000. Have not got time for details now, but will get back to you very soon, David
• anthonyhogg November 20, 2011
  Timey, I can understand the 'right of reply', but ask yourself this: is it actually working in their favour? As we've seen, Vampy is not only ignoring the Bishop's wishes, but perpetuating bile, himself. He chides Jamie for not helping to renew relations between Manny and Dave - but then does nothing to help it along, himself. The whole thing is very cyclilic. As I've said before, neither side is totally right, and, what's more, they engage in similar tactics for 'dealing' with critics: two sides of the same coin. The 'political' angle of this thing (the 'two party system') must be broken, so we have greater clarity on the matter and concede to fairness. 'It does seem that BSM's side can do no right or wrong in this instance - damned if they do, damned if they don't.' That would make sense *if* their 'lack of action' was called into account. Which it isn't.
• Timelord November 20, 2011
  The problem Anthony is if BSM's side don't actually defend him and say nothing and had said nothing, people would be saying "what they trying to hide", "why don't they speak" etc etc. Given the scale of the "publishing effort" from David Farrant, things have to be said even if BSM is either unaware or unhappy - I suppose if it puts 'right a wrong' or another side on what David Farrant has been saying that's fair enough. It does seem that BSM's side can do no right or wrong in this instance - damned if they do, damned if they don't.
• anthonyhogg November 20, 2011
  Vampy, 'Instead of retorting with "just more lies," Jamie Farrant should ask his father why he sent his self-published pamphlets packed with defamation about Seán Manchester to Seán Manchester's wife, his wife's parents, Seán Manchester's close friends and anyone thought to be remotely acquainted with him.' A fair question, provided you can answer why the guy you're appealing to - Jamie - is someone the VRS has dragged into the affair, themselves. It seems the angle you're pursuing here, is that it's ok for *your* side to do narky stuff, but not Dave's...
• anthonyhogg November 20, 2011
  Vampy, "It's not about 'numbers', but content," Hogg claims about his "Highgate Cemetery Vampire Appreciation Society" group. He makes my point because the "content" comprises little other than personal attacks on Seán Manchester.' You've acknowledged the group's status as 'closed', yet you're commenting on something you can't actually read? Interesting. And no, it doesn't comprise of little more than attacks on Manny. False. 'David Farrant comes off virtually unscathed, which is what you would expect when the entire membership, bar Hogg himself, belong to Farrant's clique of sympathetic friends.' Don't worry, Dave's claims cop criticism, too. Settle, petal. But good on ya for (finally) acknowleding them I'm not a member of the 'clique', despite repeated insinuations to that effect. 'The "founder" of the "HCVAS" visits Farrant in Muswell Hill, London. Farrant has visted the "founder" in Morden, Surrey.' Ah, once again, your obsession with locations on display. And if he visits him...so what? 'The others (less than a handful) include Farrant's eldest son and his girlfriend. They, too, visit Farrant at his Muswell Hill home.' ....der? 'That is the sort of closed group we are talking about, so why not call it what it really is: An anti-Seán Manchester hate group!' Because that's simply not true. Several times, I have offered you to join. You haven't even bothered acknowleding it. You just *want* it to be ' An anti-Seán Manchester hate group' cos it'll be more grist for your mill. 'He might want to waste his time pusruing his anti-Seán Manchester agenda, but I've got better things to do than join a den of vipers even if there are only six of them.' Yes, like lie and misrepresent. You are making comments about a group *you can't even see*. Clearly, you'd rather wage a hate campaign of your own. 'I already belong to groups where the discussions are impartial, intelligent and don't feel the need to use Farrant as some sort of yardstick.' You mean groups directly affiliated with the VRS? That's *not* impartiality, mate. 'Most people are quite satisfied that Farrant was and remains a fraud and a charlatan.' As are most that Manchester, too, was a fraud, which is why the case is generally called a 'hoax'. 'The point is that Farrant's "humour" isn't remotely funny except to a sick individual like himself; and especially not when viewed in the context of his history of pure malice against the targetted people.' I know others find it funny, but I don't, personally. It's too, mmm...self-referential, I spose. Doesn't click with me. But I maintain its 'function' is to belittle critics in a less savage way than the VRS and FoBSM - hell, even Manny do - by posting personal info on them, and such. 'First, I am not related to either David Farrant or Seán Manchester.' So? 'Second, I ceased commenting on my own blogs and elsewhere about Farrant some time back until now.' So what made you come back? 'It made absolutely no difference other than Farrant and son becoming more active in the pursuit of their vendetta. I am not accountable for what other individuals do or say.' Yet, you expect accountability from them... 'I probably don't know who they are. But one thing is for certain, Seán Manchester himself does not engage in any of this "feuding" nonsense.' That's debateable, of course, based on the whole 'sockpuppet' thing, and the Bishop's refusal to disclose the other usernames he has. Not to mention what went down on SNW. But one thing that's definitely certain, is that you're contravening the Bishop's own suggestion that others don't get tangled with that 'lot' as you've been doing here.
• TheVampirologist November 20, 2011
  This is an extract from Bishop Seán Manchester's response on the previous matter: "My immediate advice, provided the law has not been broken and lives are not put at risk, would be to ignore this person and anyone he might use in the ruthless pursuit of his vendetta. Our enemies should not be the people of this world, but rather the spirits of evil that have entered this world. He is a lost soul who has very likely attracted something spiritually malevolent early in his life which has ever since influenced him and darkened his thoughts. I first met him almost forty years ago when he contacted his local newspaper after making vague claims about an apparition he had sighted. It soon became clear he was more interested in the limelight than anything genuinely paranormal. He also developed a fascination with me which quickly turned into an obsession — by which time he had taken to emulating me to no small degree. When I distanced myself a few months later, he turned unpleasant and court cases ensued. This was followed by his fraudulent adoption of my title and the name of the research society I then presided over. ... I prefer to deny him the oxygen of publicity where I am concerned and advise others to do the same. Those who feel enraged by his behaviour and personally want to confront him should remember he is still one of God's creatures, and, if possible, they should pray for him. Pray for his state of mind and endangered soul. Otherwise, please just ignore him." Link: http://therightreverendseanmanchester.blogspot.com/2009/11/adventus.html
• TheVampirologist November 20, 2011
  The link has not reproduced intact, so here is what was said: "Dear Bishop Seán, a mutual acquaintance of ours has sent me a letter in which he confirms receiving unsolicited packages from David Farrant that contain hateful material about you. I feel I had best allow this friend's letter speak for itself by quoting the relevant section: "Do you remember David Farrant had found my address from the excommunicated Illtyd Thomas? At the time I was concerned as dear +Seán and his wife had suffered years of abuse from him. Well, I started to receive self-produced booklets from this person. The first was on its own without anything accompanying it. It was a book of lies about +Seán who has suffered the slings and arrows of this man for so long. But why send it to me? He has been sending me things for months while I have been abroad. Then I started to receive emails from the 'British Psychic and Occult Society' which turns out to be David Farrant again. Polite, not abusive, asking me if I would like to join. Can you believe this Keith? He has the utter cheek to email a stranger to ask me to join! The connection with +Seán has made me a target. I did not get concerned as +Seán and his wife have endured this for so long themselves. I replied to Farrant's email in polite and non-abusive terms that I was interested to know why the 'BPOS' thought I would consider joining? No reply was forthcoming. Then another envelope arrived from North London but with the SW14 postmark on it. It contained another booklet called 'Bishop Bonkers,' a crude attempt to attack +Seán again. Plus I was receiving more emails. I asked via email how he had found my email address but again no reply was forthcoming. Now I was angry. It was my intention to teach this bunch a severe lesson. They had attacked +Seán once too often. It was not me I was concerned about but to track down me, my address, my email, just to attack +Seán — something was going to be done. I emailed +Seán and he pointed out no contact would always be best. I have emailed +Seán to assure him I will no longer reply to anything from this bunch or, more accurately, from Farrant. I received several emails (still getting them). One invited me to a 'meeting' at a library in North London. It was my plan to go, but now I admit to you with a red face and somewhat humble that I intended to go and if just one word of ill was spoken about +Seán I fully intended to knock so much sense into their heads I would have been arrested. This I now know +Seán sensed and was correct of course to warn me not to have contact. I feel grateful because the last thing I would want would be to cause +Seán trouble. Also it is not to my credit that this was my intention. My only defence is I hoped that my actions would stop the terrible attacks on +Seán. All thanks to him for his intervention." I hardly know what to say to our mutual friend beyond the fact that you cannot communicate with demons other than by exorcism. I, too, have received packages of a similar malicious kind from this disturbed person in the past and, taking your advice, ignored it after first lodging a complaint with the police. His unsolicited mail was unwelcome, something David Farrant would not begin to understand. He is only interested in trying to turn people against you through contamination. It will always fail except where people are already against you or would be if they knew you due to the direction they have taken in their lives. My question is what advice do you have for those who share this person's initial sentiment, but do not belong to the same discipline as us? — Br Keith Maclean"
• TheVampirologist November 20, 2011
  Instead of retorting with "just more lies," Jamie Farrant should ask his father why he sent his self-published pamphlets packed with defamation about Seán Manchester to Seán Manchester's wife, his wife's parents, Seán Manchester's close friends and anyone thought to be remotely acquainted with him. These people were mostly complete strangers to Farrant. Only one or two had ever heard of him. Most didn't know he he was when they received his libellous pamphlets through their front door letter box. Kevin Chesham was a recipient at a point when Farrant had no idea who Chesham was beyond him being acquainted with Seán Manchester. Chesham was also invited to a "talk" Farrant claimed he was giving at a public library. Kevin Chesham discussed all this with Seán Manchester and some friends of the latter. Chesham told one of these friends that if he heard Farrant say any of his usual rubbish about Seán Manchester he could not be held responsible for what he might do. This got back to Seán Manchester and he advised strongly against giving Farrant a good hiding, as confirmed on this link: http://therightreverendseanmanchester.blogspot.com/2009/11/adventus.html ------- I, therefore, ask again, how would Jamie Farrant feel if his girlfriend and her mother received through their front door malicious "booklets" (to give them David Farrant's description) about himself? How would he feel if his close friends and colleagues also received "booklets" denigrating and defaming him?
• TheVampirologist November 20, 2011
  "Emma Dangerfield of the Lord Byron Society was just one such person whom [Seán] Manchester contacted. She was besieged by such unsolicited correspondence, and, in the end, broke all communication with [Seán] Manchester after he could not supply any historical evidence to support his claims," blurts Farrant in yet another contemptible, unsubstantiated allegation. Elma Dangerfield OBE, CBE was a very close personal friend of Seán Manchester and was in no doubt about his blood connection to the poet. She was also very friendly with others who regard themselves as good friends of Seán Manchester. The despicable lie that she was "besieged by unsolicited correspondence" is quite obviously fabricated when you consider the archive of exchanged letters between her and Seán Manchester over a period of decades and the many times they met in Cheslea, Hucknall Torkard and Newstead backed up by photographs and the minutes of meetings etc. His book was given a fantastic review in the Byron Society Journal, and he was asked to lay a wreath over the Byron Family Vault on more than one occasion. Who asked him to do this? Why, Elma Dangerfield of course! There was a strong empathy between them. It is very easy for Farrant to make the malicious and fabricated claims he does because the lady in question has been dead since 22 January 2006. He knows this, and makes his allegations in the certain knowledge that Elma Dangerfield cannot defend her own (and indeed Seán Manchester's) honour against Farrant's disgraceful lies. The man has no shame and has a habit of attributing to the dead all manner of falsehood, knowing full well they cannot contradict him beyond the grave. He has done it with at least two deceased members of the Vampire Research Society. Just when you thought David Farrant couldn't sink any lower he somehow always manages to do so.
• TheVampirologist November 20, 2011
  "It's not about 'numbers', but content," Hogg claims about his "Highgate Cemetery Vampire Appreciation Society" group. He makes my point because the "content" comprises little other than personal attacks on Seán Manchester. David Farrant comes off virtually unscathed, which is what you would expect when the entire membership, bar Hogg himself, belong to Farrant's clique of sympathetic friends. The "founder" of the "HCVAS" visits Farrant in Muswell Hill, London. Farrant has visted the "founder" in Morden, Surrey. The others (less than a handful) include Farrant's eldest son and his girlfriend. They, too, visit Farrant at his Muswell Hill home. That is the sort of closed group we are talking about, so why not call it what it really is: An anti-Seán Manchester hate group! Hogg then protests: "I offered you to join and you've repeatedly ignored that offer." He might want to waste his time pusruing his anti-Seán Manchester agenda, but I've got better things to do than join a den of vipers even if there are only six of them. I already belong to groups where the discussions are impartial, intelligent and don't feel the need to use Farrant as some sort of yardstick. Most people are quite satisfied that Farrant was and remains a fraud and a charlatan. Hogg says of Farrant: "I know that the 'humour' is actually a way of getting back at his critics and his own version of perpetuating the feud." The point is that Farrant's "humour" isn't remotely funny except to a sick individual like himself; and especially not when viewed in the context of his history of pure malice against the targetted people. Hogg concludes with this comment: "You criticised Jamie for perpetuating the feud, and why he was doing nothing to resolve it. I asked what you were doing to fix it...nothing." First, I am not related to either David Farrant or Seán Manchester. Second, I ceased commenting on my own blogs and elsewhere about Farrant some time back until now. It made absolutely no difference other than Farrant and son becoming more active in the pursuit of their vendetta. I am not accountable for what other individuals do or say. I probably don't know who they are. But one thing is for certain, Seán Manchester himself does not engage in any of this "feuding" nonsense.
• anthonyhogg November 20, 2011
  'As an aside, Mr Tony Hogg is totally wrong is quoting a reply put out by Mr. Sean Manchester himself (albeit under yet another one of his multiple aliases') to the effect that he (Mr. Manchester) never made this claim, but that it had been made by others about him'! Pure and utter bulldust!' David, how exactly can I be 'wrong', if I clearly said I saying what he'd told me? Pay attention. 'Mr. Hogg can not really be blamed for being duped by Mr. Manchester's third party claim as he was unaware of its true source of origin i.e. that in reality, this claim was being circulated my Mr. Manchester himself writing under just another false alias. He only has to check with Ms. Dangerfield himself for confirmation of this fact. Though I doubt if he will. It seems Mr Hogg is happier just believing fiction! See you soon, David (Farrant).' Quoting someone is not being 'duped', David. Quoting is...quoting. All I said was that I'd asked Manchester about the claim and related what he said. It wasn't even from him writing as an alias - it was featured on his blog, 'Ask Bishop Sean Manchester'. I even established there was no evidence for the claim, as no DNA testing had been done. Looks like you got a little so caught up in trying to discredit me, that you didn't think your response through. I'm still waiting for you to relate the so-called 'untrue propaganda' I spread about the Highgate case. You said it, now prove it. Otherwise, I'll have to conclude you're as full of bileful hot air as Vampy is.
• A Facebook user November 19, 2011
  As a PS to my post Jamie, my expose of the Lord Byron 'ancestry claims' were published in No 1 of my series of "Man, Myth and Manchester" (circa 2000). These are still widely available from the BPOS or can be purchased via Amazon or ordered from most good bookshops. As an aside, Mr Tony Hogg is totally wrong is quoting a reply put out by Mr. Sean Manchester himself (albeit under yet another one of his multiple aliases') to the effect that he (Mr. Manchester) never made this claim, but that it had been made by others about him'! Pure and utter bulldust! Mr. Manchester was the sole person making this claim, and trying to get support from it from leading academics by making such a suggestion. Emma Dangerfield of the Lord Byron Society was just one such person whom Mr. Manchester contacted. She was besieged by such unsolicited correspondence, and, in the end, broke all communication with Mr. Manchester after he could not supply any historical evidence to support his claims. Mr. Hogg can not really be blamed for being duped by Mr. Manchester's third party claim as he was unaware of its true source of origin i.e. that in reality, this claim was being circulated my Mr. Manchester himself writing under just another false alias. He only has to check with Ms. Dangerfield himself for confirmation of this fact. Though I doubt if he will. It seems Mr Hogg is happier just believing fiction! See you soon, David (Farrant).
• A Facebook user November 19, 2011
  Vampy, 'I put it to Jamie Farrant that if he were in Seán Manchester's shoes he would have gone balistic and heaven only knows what would have happened to the perpetrator. So how is it that what is good for the goose is apparently not good for the gander?' What Would Manchester Do? Ignore it. That's what he's publicly advocated. As a follower, you'd know that. So, if you want to know what's good for the goose is good for the gander, I suggest you follow Manchester's advice instead of blatantly ignoring it. David, 'Additionally, one might ask why he has not sought comparative DNA tests with Byron’s legitimate ancestors alive today (who one could be forgiven for assuming would be the most likely candidates for inheriting family heirlooms – as opposed to purchasing them at auction)? Well I think we all know why!' Funnily enough, I explicitly asked Manchester about the claims of Byronic ancestry he's made (though, why a Bishop would want to overly link himself to a notorious libertine is beyond me). I even asked whether he had DNA tests. Here's what he said. 'The claim that I am connected to the poet by blood is not mine; it is that of my forebears, supported by Byron scholars, chief among whom is Professor Leslie A Marchand (see Acknowledgements in Mad, Bad and Dangerous to Know). Their claim is my legacy. Quite obviously I have not had DNA testing carried out because when last Lord Byron was exhumed for inspection I was not yet born, coupled with the fact that the seventh Lord Byron (successor to the title upon the death of the poet), George Anson Byron, while a cousin, is not the sixth Lord's progeny and George Anson Byron's successors, therefore, are not directly descended from the poet.' However, Manchester, himself, has clearly perpetuated the link - but at least acknowledges that there's no DNA evidence for the claim. But, since you've decided to come back (even if it's to bang on about Manchester), you're yet to reveal what so-called 'untrue propaganda' I spread is. So, David, can you pinpoint something I've said that's false or incorrect about the case, etc.? Specific examples, not broad statements like 'defamation' a la Vampy.
• A Facebook user November 19, 2011
  Vampy, 'It is a complete waste of time addressing Hogg. He just likes to argue for argument's sake (the one fact I can agree with David Farrant about). Hogg jumped on the Highgate Vampire bandwagon for a free ride.' A ride? Really? I'm not the one making money and generating self-publicity of this thing. Hell, no one would even know my name if you knuckleheads didn't keep going out of your way to 'expose' me and release personal details (like that 'home address'). The case for me, is a hobby. An interest. A mystery to solve. Hoist by your own petard, sir. 'He wants to be noticed, but is obviously getting frustrated because nobody is interested.' You've both got an interest in me, that's for sure. You wouldn't devote so much time to writing *about* me (another thing in common, you rarely directly engage). 'Less than half a dozen members is all he can muster because that is how many he has on his "Highgate Cemetery Vampire Appreciation" group which he bizarrely calls a "Society."' I didn't call it that. I was made an administrator afterwards. I didn't found it. As to 'mustering members', I don't care if we get ten or 1,000. It's not about 'numbers', but content. On one hand, you criticise me for 'bandwagoning' (as if you have exclusive rights to the case, which you don't)...then you criticise my involvement as not being popular *enough*. Make up your mind, Vampy! lol 'The seventh member was banned by Hogg and fellow administrator Redmond McWilliams because they feared he was a sympathiser of Seán Manchester. How do I know the seventh member was banned? Because (a) he his name been deleted from the FB group and (b) the group can still be viewed. The banned member is also a member of other forums and groups. That last fact is how I know he is impartial.' I've already stated the reason he was banned. It wasn't for being a sympathiser, but leaking personal details and such to you. Plus, I didn't ban him. He was *not* banned for being a sympathiser. Hell, I offered you to join and you've repeatedly ignored that offer. Mate, anyone can read this thing to see how you're grossly misrepresenting the issue. If you wanna keep being a tool, that's your choice, but don't lie about it. And being a member of several groups does not actually evince 'impartiality'. 'David Farrant, talking about his latest publication which ridicules Catherine Fearnley, Barbara Green and various others who have seen through him, posted in the last few hours on his blog: "I just wish that some people were able to laugh at certain situations (and themselves) as I and some other people can!"' Sure, he talks about having a 'laugh', but make a few jokey comments about him being drunk in his video and all of a sudden, he gets rather *serious*. I know that the 'humour' is actually a way of getting back at his critics and his own version of perpetuating the feud. It's pretty obvious. 'Instead of constantly engaging in the blame game, Jamie Farrant should for once give an honest answer to the following: How would he feel if his girlfriend and her mother received hateful pamphlets through the mail about him?' I like how you've stolen my 'put the shoe on the other foot' rationale and warped it to your own ends. You can ask for empathy, sure, but you've gotta give it, too. You criticised Jamie for perpetuating the feud, and why he was doing nothing to resolve it. I asked what you were doing to fix it...nothing. If you actually want progress with this thing, being a hypocrite isn't gonna help. Neither will repeatedly 'flipping it back'. Be accountable for your own actions, too, before twisting it back onto others. I say the same thing about Dave; I'll say it about you. And I haven't shied away from your criticisms, either. I even admitted my language was 'unfortunate' in describing the Bish.
• A Facebook user November 19, 2011
  Hi Jamie. Anybody who believes any of this claptrap (i.e. about being descended from Lord Byron and inheriting family artifacts such as ‘duelling pistols’ etc), must be in serious need of some mental guidance themselves. The individual making this claim was in reality brought up in a dingy council flat situated near Nottingham’s busy mainline railway station. These council blocks were infact situated in St Anne’s Well Road, but in 1970 they were all condemned as unfit for human habitation, and demolished by Nottingham Council. Wikipedia gives some insight as to New blocks and buildings were erected in their place – indeed, these still stand today (or as Wikipedia describes it “In 1969, the area was looking impoverished, with many of the shops and houses 100 years old or more. A local Housing Act raised legal standards for houses being 'fit for human habitation'. Clearance of some of the land began in December of that year, although building of new houses didn't start until 1973 and continued into the 1980s. However, the open plan layout with interlocking footpaths, coupled with poor street lighting, actually brought about an increase in crime. This renovation included the relocation of many residents to The Meadows area of the city, which has contributed to some of the gang related crimes in the city […]St Ann's today is dominated by council housing, a legacy of the slum clearance at the end of the 1960s. The damp, crumbling Victorian terraces were replaced with better quality housing but despite this the Radburn style footways have contributed to anti-social behaviour.’ Hardly a baronial seat! The claim this individual makes to be descended by blood from Lord Byron is, in fact, just a fallacy, and perhaps just supplies more evidence of his crumbling mental health. Not his fault, perhaps, but then again such fantasies can perhaps be harmful when they are applied to other people whom he criticises with a vengeance for disbelieving his fantasies. As a matter of interest the body of the genuine Lord Byron was exhumed in 1938 by a clergyman who first obtained Home Office permission. There was apparently some controversy – or dispute – as to whether the person who lay embalmed in the church crypt was really Lord Byron himself. It turned out this was, and the corpse had remained remarkably well preserved. However, the point is, that if such an absurd claim was true we have to ask one, why no records of this person’s alleged ancestry appear on the family tree in Newstead Abbey which can be inspected by the public, and two, if this claim ahs any credence whatsoever, why this person has never made any application to have the corpse exhumed once again so that DNA tests could settle the matter irrevocably? Additionally, one might ask why he has not sought comparative DNA tests with Byron’s legitimate ancestors alive today (who one could be forgiven for assuming would be the most likely candidates for inheriting family heirlooms – as opposed to purchasing them at auction)? Well I think we all know why! Which brings me to my other point Jamie, a reference here given to my ‘illicit pamphlets’; in reality a series of booklets I wrote (lodged at all the university libraries as required by law) titled ‘Man, Myth and Manchester’. I pulled this attempted hoax to shreds in the first issue; and indeed it is my rebuttals of fabricated claims such as these that has so incurred the wrath of their perpetrator. So pull the other one, Seanie, its got church bells on it! See you soon Jamie, and please don’t forget our filming debut soon!
• TheVampirologist November 19, 2011
  Jamie Farrant really needs to take a reality check. His father DOES NOT DENY sending his self-published pamphlets packed with defamation about Seán Manchester to Seán Manchester's wife, his wife's parents, Seán Manchester's close friends and anyone thought to be remotely acquainted with him. Farrant has confirmed in the past (on the internet) sending these items to people who for the most part he does not know and who have a connection to Seán Manchester. So, I ask again, how would Jamie Farrant feel if his girlfriend and her mother were to receive through the post vindictive garbage about him? How would he feel if his close friends and colleagues also received pamphlets denigrating him? Seán Manchester has never sent unsolicited material of this nature to any of Farrant's past wives, partners, relatives, friends or colleagues. Nor would he want to do anything so despicable and malicious. I put it to Jamie Farrant that if he were in Seán Manchester's shoes he would have gone balistic and heaven only knows what would have happened to the perpetrator. So how is it that what is good for the goose is apparently not good for the gander?
• A Facebook user November 19, 2011
  I love the way Seans still pretending to be someone else and writing about himself, the only thing he's honest about is how he hacks into other peoples facebook accounts. I see he's still ignoring my request for evidence to back up his lies but I guess that won't be forthcoming seeing as that's exactly what they are.... just more lies! At least he's predictable, doing exactly what I said he'd do and trying to turn everything onto David! I believe the expression's. 'one trick pony'. You'd think after all these years of practise he'd would have at least expanded his repetoire but apparently not. Mind you he always did have a limited imagination, you can tell that from his plagarism and his books! (unsold copies available in skips around Bournmouth) :-)
• TheVampirologist November 19, 2011
  David Farrant, talking about his latest publication which ridicules Catherine Fearnley, Barbara Green and various others who have seen through him, posted in the last few hours on his blog: "I just wish that some people were able to laugh at certain situations (and themselves) as I and some other people can!" Farrant's behaviour since his drunken forays to Highgate Cemetery with his wife and whoever tagged along has been anything but "a bit of a laugh and a giggle" (as it was described in court). Instead of constantly engaging in the blame game, Jamie Farrant should for once give an honest answer to the following: How would he feel if his girlfriend and her mother received hateful pamphlets through the mail about him? How would he feel if his work colleagues and social friends also received out of the blue really nasty stuff through the post about him? I ask because that is what his father does all the time. Farrant has sent his self-published pamphlets devoted to defaming Seán Manchester to the latter's wife, her mother, his close friends, family, colleagues and anyone thought to acquainted towith him. How would Jamie Farrant feel if he was treated in that way? It goes without saying that Seán Manchester has not sent unsolicited malicious material about Farrant to his any of his wives, partners, relatives, friends, colleagues etc. Indeed, some years ago, as recounted by Seán Manchester at the time, he was contacted by a relative of Farrant who resided in Australia asking how to contact David Farrant. These were still early days and internet use was not what it is now. They apparently found it easy to find Seán Manchester, but not Farrant. What happened? Seán Manchester simply provided them with David Farrant's contact details and nothing else. I seem to remember they contacted Seán Manchester under the mistaken belief that their relative was associated with his research society. Can you imagine what would have happened if the shoe had been on the other foot?
• TheVampirologist November 19, 2011
  It is a complete waste of time addressing Hogg. He just likes to argue for argument's sake (the one fact I can agree with David Farrant about). Hogg jumped on the Highgate Vampire bandwagon for a free ride. He wants to be noticed, but is obviously getting frustrated because nobody is interested. Less than half a dozen members is all he can muster because that is how many he has on his "Highgate Cemetery Vampire Appreciation" group which he bizarrely calls a "Society." The seventh member was banned by Hogg and fellow administrator Redmond McWilliams because they feared he was a sympathiser of Seán Manchester. How do I know the seventh member was banned? Because (a) he his name been deleted from the FB group and (b) the group can still be viewed. The banned member is also a member of other forums and groups. That last fact is how I know he is impartial. The VRS group on FB has approaching four hundred members and is very closely monitored with people being dropped (but seldom banned) all the time for posting material not relevant to the Vampire Research Society's remit (otherwise the membership of this closed group would be closer to double that figure). I am not going to explain to Hogg how easy it is to view a closed group such as his own, but allow me to inform everyone that the conversation - much of it from Redmond McWilliams with Hogg joining in with his unpleasantness - is predominantly vitriol against Seán Manchester. Now there's a surprise!
• A Facebook user November 18, 2011
  Vampy, 'The bottom line is that all this could end in a trice if David Farrant wanted it to. So why isn't his eldest son working to bring the forty-year-old "feud" to a halt instead of pouring oil on troubled waters?' And what are *you* doing to stitch that up? I don't see you taking any initiatives. Putting the burden on Jamie's pretty stupid, seeing as he's a relative newcomer to this thing. The burden is on Manny and Dave. At least *I've* given it a shot, as you'd know from my peace initiatives. I even discussed conditions with both. Why don't you help get the ball rolling, too? Be more proactive. Let's put an end to this thing.
• A Facebook user November 18, 2011
  'Even Hogg was a contender until he started openly fraternising with the Farrant clique.' Well, yes, I know what it's like to be accused of being Manchester, because I'm critical of David's claims. But if I'm critical of Sean's claims...then I'm, apparently, on *David's* side! You just can't win! The funny thing is, you both engage in that us vs. them tactic. Divide and conquer. I know what you're doing and it's amusing to see how you both use the *same damn tactics* (so you *do* have something in common, after all!). But, like I said before: it only undermines the concept of free thought. Neither side can be 100% right about *everything*, so occasionally I'll agree with one at the expense of the other. Free thought: try it some time. 'Hogg laid the way clear for reference to the younger brother by making the remark he did about Jamie Farrant coming to his father's defence. It was in that context that I responded with the fact that Jamie Farrant was alone in doing so. Hogg wants all discussions to be on his terms.' Ah, of course. So it's *my* fault you guys have been mentioning Dave's kids for years, eh? lol Come on, man. Seriously. I was only trying to give you a little perspective here. Think of it in human terms, not devils vs. angels. A son coming to the defence of his father, much like you - a 'friend' - of Manny, coming to the defense of the Bish. Two sides of the same coin. The difference here, of course, is that Manchester has explicitly stated that such Dave's camp is, essentially, to be ignored. Therefore, you're disrespecting the Bish's wishes and, it's easy to see why he made those comments, as you get too caught in the hate. 'But also in self-published pamphlets containing stacks of stolen images. By virtue of the fact that Farrant is actually selling these items containing infringed material, he is guilty of fraud' ok, so...take him to caught then. What's the point of rattling off someone's crimes, then not doing anything about it? Who gives a fuck if the images were stolen, then? The Bishop doesn't care. If he did, he'd take him to court and sue him. Otherwise, seriously, stfu about that. Besides, the Bishop's one to talk. He's a blatant plagiarist. I've busted him doing that many times. Hell, even his 'lineage' is plagiarised. I don't see you criticising him. Perhaps the Bish should re-read Matthew 7:3. And you should, too.
• A Facebook user November 18, 2011
  Vampy says, 'Why doesn't Hogg?' reveal why I called Manny what I did. Sure, no worries. Your spy (or, perhaps you, in yet another guise), infiltrated the group, reported back to you, and then used said info to 'out' Red. Invading a Facebook group, to spread personal info about someone, is the depths to which you stoop. Now, Red believed that the person on here who spread that, was a Manchester manifestation. It was *that* I was responding to. 'I should clarify that there is no need for a member to "leak" anything (and nobody did, incidentally) because those so-called "closed groups" are a doddle to view by non-members. The VRS has the same problem on FB. It, too, is a closed group. Yet non-members sometimes view it, and occasionally manage to post on it.' Maybe so, but you already gave the game away, by saying 'Yet the only member of this closed group not to be well and truly in David Farrant's camp was summarily banned by Hogg whose paranoia couldn't risk anyone other than the most hardened anti- Seán Manchester types remaining. That's how impartial Hogg really is.' Firstly, I didn't ban him. But I did agree with the decision. The thing is, how would you *know* about that, considering the only thing the person said on the forum...was their own name. Anyway, enough of this bullshit. I shouldn't even be dignifying your dodgy tactics with a reply. The guy was a spy - you know it, I do. Drop the act. If you (you ignored my invitation to join, should you wish, by the way!) or other Manchester sympathisers wish to join, as far as I'm concerned, you're welcome to. But we won't tolerate leaking personal info elsewhere. Respect the privacy of members - focus on what they *say* (as you've done with my comments), not on who they are, or where they live or what their sexuality or religion is, etc.
• A Facebook user November 18, 2011
  Jamie, 'As Sean well knows I got involved when I sent him a message asking him to stop posting things about my family on the internet. What I got back was accusations of abuse and pages of (what I now realise to be) his standard cut and paste crap about David.' Ah, just as I suspected. As I said before, dragging bystanders into this thing doesn't make 'em warm up to Manny, Vamps. Quite the opposite, actually. Vampy, 'Why is the address Hogg published relevant, or the birthdate of Seán Manchester which he has also published on his blog where incitements against Seán Manchester are a common feature?' Context, mate, context. And why are you only focusing on the stuff I say about Sean? He's a dodgy bugger. I expose that. What's the problem? 'What is more revealing is Hogg's problem with me identifying a pub (by name only) frequented by Jamie Farrant, but not his posting of items in that pub intended to incited hatred against someone.' Ok, then. Bad, Jamie! Bad! Happy? Look, ask yourself this: *why* does Jamie 'hate' Manchester? Is it purely irrational? What brought him into this thing? Can you not see how damaging this feud actually is? 'Her comments were made under oath on pain of perjury because her husband subpoenaed her. She had no choice in the matter. There was no "crossfire" because she was not involved in any of her husband's deceitful stratagems. All she did was observe what was going on around her, and occasionally accompany her husband after the pubs closed when entered Highgate Cemetery at night for "a bit of a giggle," as she described it. She was not on anyone's side other than her own and that of her children.' That seems to be the gist of it, based on the reports and David's autobiogs. My point about 'crossfire', is that she got caught up in something stupid, which was very unfortunate. She was a relative innocent - like Jamie, for that matter - who got caught up in something motivated by self-interest, rather than concern for their well-being. The feud is another manifestation of the clash of egos decimating all in its path!
• Timelord November 18, 2011
  Yeah Jamie/Arrald, everyone who speaks out against your fine upstanding father is Bishop Manchester. Get a life Jamie.
• A Facebook user November 18, 2011
  Come on now, everybody reading this knows it's you Sean, which makes eveything you've said in your last two posts a total lie. Save the self righteous crap for someone who believes it. Also you alleged I'd been posting about you before I had to pm you, lets see it then. I invite you to put up anything . Unlike you I won't report it or cry abuse, lets see your evidence, time to put up or shut up! Why not copy and paste it, thats what you do the rest of the time!
• TheVampirologist November 18, 2011
  The bottom line is that all this could end in a trice if David Farrant wanted it to. So why isn't his eldest son working to bring the forty-year-old "feud" to a halt instead of pouring oil on troubled waters? Seán Manchester has avoided mentioning David Farrant; even withdrawing an autobiographical manuscript seven or eight years ago because it dwelt too much on the old wounds. In the meantime, Farrant posts calumny about Seán Manchester every week of the year; continues to self-publish material in hardcopy that concentrates on defaming and ridiculing Seán Manchester and innocent third parties associated with him. Farrant also continues to publish infantile cartoon booklets and upload nonsense on YouTube aimed specifically at denigrating Seán Manchester. There is not an interview Farrant gives where he does not mention or refer to Seán Manchester in a thoroughly unpleasant and abusive way. By contrast, Seán Manchester has not once mentioned David Farrant in a broadcast interview since 13 March 1970. That is almost as long as Jamie Farrant has been alive! And he only mentioned him back in 1970 to advise against his plan to "vampire hunt" at Highgate Cemetery - advice Farrant ignored when he went "vampire hunting" on the night of 17 August 1970, leading to his arrest by police who were searching for black magic devotees. Had he listened to Seán Manchester at the time he could have saved himself a lot of heartache. This is now all blood under the bridge; blood that should be allowed to flow away. Farrant does not appear to want the situation ever to heal because he thrives on it and is totally obsessed with Seán Manchester. Instead of assisting to make matters worse, his eldest son should surely be helping his father to find closure. Maybe he could seek treatment? Or counselling? All that is happening in fact is the son making a bad situation far worse for the father by accelerating the ill-feeling of which there is undoubtedly much on both sides, when he could be trying to make his father see some sense. Seán Manchester is not disseminating derogatory cartoons, malicious pamphlets, asinine videos and talking about Farrant in podcasts or indeed anywhere. The person doing this and much more is Jamie Farrant's father who could end this right now if he was of a mind.
• TheVampirologist November 18, 2011
  While on the subject of user-names, it's funny how Trish Jing Jai, Tony Sheridan and one or two others of that sock-puppet ilk only have a very small number of Facebook friends with each and every one of them very closely connected to David Farrant, eg Jamie Farrant who, of course, really does exist in his own right. How is it they know absolutely nobody other than the tiny Farrant mob? Could it possibly be that these people do not exist as independent entities? Perish the thought that such shenanigans would ever occur to Farrant's immediate collaborators! To address Farrant's son, what is truly "astounding hypocrisy" is complaining about legitimate mention of innocent parties in a non-abusive way by me when prompted by the likes of Hogg, and Jamie Farrant turning a blind eye to the years and years of his father publishing complete and utter twaddle about innocent third parties and family thought by him to be associated with Seán Manchester. Not just on the internet either. But also in self-published pamphlets containing stacks of stolen images. By virtue of the fact that Farrant is actually selling these items containing infringed material, he is guilty of fraud - a criminal offence. I merely mention this as an observation, as, contrary to Jamie Farrant's unsubstantiated recurring theme, I am not the person affected. The person who is prefers to ignore the likes of David Farrant.
• A Facebook user November 18, 2011
  I'd like to see some evidence of me posting about Sean before I had to message him.... oh thats right, there isn't any because it didn't happen. Maybe Sean should stop lying now, it's getting boring. On that note I'm very impressed that he tries turning it onto me. The only 'people' close to Sean I've ever posted about are his sock puppet user names, and the only reason I give them any credence whatsoever is to stop him coming out with his 'I'm not Sean, how dare you say I am' spiel that he uses to change the subject when he gets caught out lying. Funny though that when Sean posts intimate details (made up or otherwise) about people it's in the public domain, yet if anyone has the temerity to post pictures or facts about Sean (also taken from the internet) then suddenly this rule doesn't apply and he goes running crying to the site moderators and/or the dmca board. Astounding hypocrisy, even for him!
• TheVampirologist November 18, 2011
  "I sent him a message asking him to stop posting things about my family on the internet," claims Jamie Farrant. The eldest son of David Farrant had been posting his father's garbage on the internet for some considerable time before threats were made against Seán Manchester in this regard. And they were threats! It was almost certainly explained to Jamie Farrant that nothing had been posted about his family which was not already in the public domain, and, even then, certainly not by Seán Manchester whom Farrant tries to convince is the person behind everyone who is critical of him. Even Hogg was a contender until he started openly fraternising with the Farrant clique. Jamie Farrant is surely aware that his father has for many years been disseminating on the internet, and in his self-published pamphlets, reams of fabricated nonsense about innocent third parties connected in some way to Seán Manchester', including family members. David Farrant's ex-girlfriend has made a statement to the effect that "documents" circulated by Farrant to hate sites in the USA and elsewhere for publication are forged, and that she knows for a fact that Farrant is the hand behind all such "documents." They purport to identify innocent people linked to Seán Manchester. That is the work of Jamie Farrant's father, but the son has to some degree continued the hateful practice of involving innocent parties. Then he has the audacity to get upset when his own family is referred to in a totally legitimate and non-abusive way. Hogg laid the way clear for reference to the younger brother by making the remark he did about Jamie Farrant coming to his father's defence. It was in that context that I responded with the fact that Jamie Farrant was alone in doing so. Hogg wants all discussions to be on his terms. Jamie Farrant, like his father, wants to abuse Seán Manchester at all costs.
• TheVampirologist November 18, 2011
  Hogg's claim of impartiality has to be balanced against his recent "Highgate Cemetery Vampire Appreciation" group run by a close friend of David Farrant called Redmond McWilliams and Hogg himself. The only members are Jamie Farrant and his girlfriend, plus a couple of others who support Farrant. Hogg shrugs his shoulders and claims that sympathisers of the man he calls "a fuckin' lowlife" (on the same group) can also join. Hogg responds with: "Point? Also, since you like bringing that up - and yes, it was unfortunate language - why don't you mention the *context* in why it was said?" Why doesn't Hogg? He continues: "You mean the *spy* lol The guy who was leaking you stuff, rigtht [sic]? Well, it's a closed group so members' privacy may be respected." I should clarify that there is no need for a member to "leak" anything (and nobody did, incidentally) because those so-called "closed groups" are a doddle to view by non-members. The VRS has the same problem on FB. It, too, is a closed group. Yet non-members sometimes view it, and occasionally manage to post on it.
• TheVampirologist November 18, 2011
  "Yes, provided links. But not disclosed a direct connection yourself. It's like you're too ashamed to come out and say you 'work' for the VRS," says Hogg. If you follow the link to the VRS blog which I have provided you will discover exactly the same user-name, ie "The Vampirologist," and icon (a cross) as that used by me here. Referring to the name of a pub and Jamie Farrant's birthdate, Hogg continues: "You're missing the point: *why* post it? Why is it relevant?" Why is the address Hogg published relevant, or the birthdate of Seán Manchester which he has also published on his blog where incitements against Seán Manchester are a common feature? I was merely asking Jamie Farrant if that is the same pub he was referring to when he spoke of sticking up anti-Seán Manchesters posters. What is more revealing is Hogg's problem with me identifying a pub (by name only) frequented by Jamie Farrant, but not his posting of items in that pub intended to incited hatred against someone. Referring to David Farrant's ex-wife, Hogg claims: "As it stands, we have her comments to the court and little else. It seems she was another person caught in the crossfire." Her comments were made under oath on pain of perjury because her husband subpoenaed her. She had no choice in the matter. There was no "crossfire" because she was not involved in any of her husband's deceitful stratagems. All she did was observe what was going on around her, and occasionally accompany her husband after the pubs closed when entered Highgate Cemetery at night for "a bit of a giggle," as she described it. She was not on anyone's side other than her own and that of her children.
• A Facebook user November 18, 2011
  As Sean well knows I got involved when I sent him a message asking him to stop posting things about my family on the internet. What I got back was accusations of abuse and pages of (what I now realise to be) his standard cut and paste crap about David. Before last year I'd never heard of the bloke. Now unfortunately I have, and I've got to say, I don't think I've ever come across such a vindictive, mean spirited piece of work. Just read his posts on here, it speaks for itself!
• A Facebook user November 18, 2011
  'I feel it is answered in spades when you read the vile and disgusting obscenities he spews out onto the internet every time he sits at his keyboard.' Yeah, but the biggie is *when* did that start? Think about it. It's not like Jamie was in the background the whole time. But I'll leave him to provide his say on it. 'It's a pity he has hidden his past history from view on Facebook because it is crammed with sexual perversion and foul language.' A pity, you say? I thought *not* seeing such things would be a benefit to someone as high falutin' as yourself, Vampy. 'Hogg jumps to Jamie Farrant's defence with these words: "He wouldn't've been drawn into this nonsense, if it wasn't for Manchester's minions posting about him online."' Yes, that's my opinion - but it's speculative. In terms of my experience with this thing, Jamie's only popped on the scene fairly recently, after all. 'Any "posting about him" was clearly a response and a reaction to Jamie Farrant's vitriolic attacks on Seán Manchester.' Doubtful. The references to him I'm referring to, is your love -and this has been going on for years - of hurling any kinda mud you can at Dave, including his fatherly negligence. But in doing so, you draw innocents to the fray. You should've left Jamie out of it. 'Interestingly, we don't see younger brother Danny posting malice or coming to his father's defence.' And see, there you go again. Why are you even mentioning Danny at all? You want him to join the party? Seriously, Vampy, invoking other people's names like that is just making you look like a douchebag. Cut it out. 'Nobody, therefore, has a bad word to say about him because he has wisely kept out of this "feud."' Yeah, so why talk about him at all? Are they your concern? Your kids? I don't think so. Are you really *that* desperate for ammo that you'd invoke their names in your petty vendetta? Give it a rest, dude. Why not talk about Manchester's kids, instead, seeing as you have a closer association to him than you do with Dave's sprog. 'The same can be said for their mother who, if she did speak out honestly - and all credit to her for keeping out of it - would blow David Farrant's account regarding the British Occult Society and his jaunts to Highgate Cemetery during the late Sixties completely out of the water.' Perhaps, but if she doesn't want to - and who can blame her for not wanting to get involved in this malarkey - then how about leaving her out of it? You've already got the press report to draw on. Be satisfied with that. 'Finally, I once again remind anyone who reads Hogg's claim of impartiality to be aware that his recent "Highgate Cemetery Vampire Appreciation" group is run by a close friend of David Farrant called Redmond McWilliams and Hogg himself.' So? 'The only members are Jamie Farrant and his girlfriend, plus a couple of others who support Farrant.' And? 'Hogg shrugs his shoulders and claims that sympathisers of the man he calls "a fuckin' lowlife" (on the same group) can also join.' Point? Also, since you like bringing that up - and yes, it was unfortunate language - why don't you mention the *context* in why it was said? I didn't just say it at random, after all. 'Yet the only member of this closed group not to be well and truly in David Farrant's camp was summarily banned by Hogg whose paranoia couldn't risk anyone other than the most hardened anti- Seán Manchester types remaining. That's how impartial Hogg really is.' Oh, right. You mean the *spy* lol The guy who was leaking you stuff, rigtht? Well, Vampy, it's a closed group so members' privacy may be respected. Clearly, running off to feed things to you does not uphold that privacy. Seeing as you're whinging about it, though, do you want to join? If not, stfu about that, already.
• A Facebook user November 18, 2011
  Vampy, 'But, as already stated, I had long since provided links on this thread to - wait for it - the Vampire Research Society's blog which I administrate. How, then, am I being made to "reveal a connection" by Hogg when I had already provided (to anyone who actually took the trouble to read what is posted on here by me) a connection to the VRS?' Yes, provided links. But not disclosed a direct connection yourself. It's like you're too ashamed to come out and say you 'work' for the VRS. Again, that doesn't surprise me. 'Hogg asks: "What's with the compulsion of discussing addresses and birthdates?" I have not published the address of anyone involved in these controversies, but Hogg has (on his own blog).' You mean the Gothic Press's address? What about it? 'The birthdate I provide is published openly on the internet by the person in question himself.' You're missing the point: *why* post it? Why is it relevant? Same goes for the pub. Why mention a specific address? And you trying to intimidate people, FoBSM style, or what? Chill, bro. 'Jamie Farrant will not reveal what his mother might have told him because it would certainly condemn David Farrant as a charlatan.' Possibly, but that remains to be seen. As it stands, we have her comments to the court and little else. It seems she was another person caught in the crossfire. Indeed, you're using her as ammunition, not that you really give a toss. 'Hogg also said in an earlier comment: "If someone was slagging your dad off online, wouldn't you be as keen to get back at 'em." That is an extremely weak argument when you consider that this "feud" has been in the public arena for almost as long as Jamie Farrant has been alive.' Yes, which is pretty sad in its own right, isn't it? There was no need to drag him into it, too. Therefore, is it any wonder whose side he's come down on. Give it a rest already. Kiss and make up. 'What prevented him sticking his nose in much earlier during the last four decades? Why wait until now? That is surely the real question that needs addressing.' Which is why I asked it. I gave my interepretation. I think it's possible that you guys actually helped push him towards Dave (as you've done with others), by being such nasty pricks. But you're too wrapped up in yourself to realise. Your vitirol doesn't actually win followers, but creates enemies. Now you probably understand why the Bish told you to back off. For a man you pretend to respect, you certainly don't listen to him.
• A Facebook user November 18, 2011
  Jamie, 'For Anthony, while I'm not going to go into details for obvious resons if you pm me on fb I'll be able to clarify a few things. I'm not doing it on here because I don't want Sean knowing anything about her including her opinions!' No worries, mate.
• A Facebook user November 17, 2011
  You must be getting quite desperate to introduce my ex-wife into your wild claims, Sean. It is even more bizarre as she gave me a letter signed by 'yourself' sent to her in 1970 under the alias "George Smith and Associates" in which you were asking her 'co-operation' for a book you were proposing on myself at the time. It was sent from the address in Holloway Road, North London, where you will remember you used to live. Give it a rest Sean, you're just making yourself look like an absolute lunatic! David Farrant, President, British Psychic and Occult Society.
• Timelord November 17, 2011
  "About her" - lovely way to describe your mother. Have you no respect for anyone, Jamie/Arrald?
• TheVampirologist November 17, 2011
  "Unintelligent, you say? Interesting, because correct me if I'm wrong, but my 'unintelligence' has finally caused you to reveal your connection. Cheers," insists Hogg. But, as already stated, I had long since provided links on this thread to - wait for it - the Vampire Research Society's blog which I administrate. How, then, am I being made to "reveal a connection" by Hogg when I had already provided (to anyone who actually took the trouble to read what is posted on here by me) a connection to the VRS? Hogg asks: "What's with the compulsion of discussing addresses and birthdates?" I have not published the address of anyone involved in these controversies, but Hogg has (on his own blog). The birthdate I provide is published openly on the internet by the person in question himself. Jamie Farrant will not reveal what his mother might have told him because it would certainly condemn David Farrant as a charlatan. Hogg also said in an earlier comment: "If someone was slagging your dad off online, wouldn't you be as keen to get back at 'em." That is an extremely weak argument when you consider that this "feud" has been in the public arena for almost as long as Jamie Farrant has been alive. What prevented him sticking his nose in much earlier during the last four decades? Why wait until now? That is surely the real question that needs addressing. I feel it is answered in spades when you read the vile and disgusting obscenities he spews out onto the internet every time he sits at his keyboard. It's a pity he has hidden his past history from view on Facebook because it is crammed with sexual perversion and foul language. Hogg jumps to Jamie Farrant's defence with these words: "He wouldn't've been drawn into this nonsense, if it wasn't for Manchester's minions posting about him online." Any "posting about him" was clearly a response and a reaction to Jamie Farrant's vitriolic attacks on Seán Manchester. Interestingly, we don't see younger brother Danny posting malice or coming to his father's defence. Nobody, therefore, has a bad word to say about him because he has wisely kept out of this "feud." The same can be said for their mother who, if she did speak out honestly - and all credit to her for keeping out of it - would blow David Farrant's account regarding the British Occult Society and his jaunts to Highgate Cemetery during the late Sixties completely out of the water. Finally, I once again remind anyone who reads Hogg's claim of impartiality to be aware that his recent "Highgate Cemetery Vampire Appreciation" group is run by a close friend of David Farrant called Redmond McWilliams and Hogg himself. The only members are Jamie Farrant and his girlfriend, plus a couple of others who support Farrant. Hogg shrugs his shoulders and claims that sympathisers of the man he calls "a fuckin' lowlife" (on the same group) can also join. Yet the only member of this closed group not to be well and truly in David Farrant's camp was summarily banned by Hogg whose paranoia couldn't risk anyone other than the most hardened anti- Seán Manchester types remaining. That's how impartial Hogg really is.
• A Facebook user November 17, 2011
  I'm not stupid enough to believe that you, 'vampirogist' 'vrs' 'fobsm' plus a host of other aliases are not the same person. Are you stupid enough to think no-one realises or are you going to carry on with the fake indignation. For Anthony, while I'm not going to go into details for obvious resons if you pm me on fb I'll be able to clarify a few things. I'm not doing it on here because I don't want Sean knowing anything about her including her opinions!
• A Facebook user November 17, 2011
  'Trust me, that's not the worst I could've said," says Hogg after publishing on Facebook that Bishop Seán Manchester is "a fuckin' lowlife." What could he possibly say that is worse than that? I and others would be interested to know.' I'm sure you would! 'Hogg also somewhat unintelligently states: "I know you're too ashamed to admit your connection to the VRS, anyway. But do keep pretending you're merely 'a friend'." Is he really that stupid? My blogs include one titled "Vampire Research Society." I have even provided links to it on this very thread. My connection to the VRS is therefore obvious to a blind man at night in a coal mine! Link: http://vampireresearchsociety.blogspot.com' Unintelligent, you say? Interesting, because correct me if I'm wrong, but my 'unintelligence' has finally caused you to reveal your connection. Cheers, Vampy. ;) There's one slight flaw in your 'representation' here, though: you know that Manchester doesn't let *anyone* speak on his behalf, online. Therefore, much of intimate details you reveal here, is hot air. Speak on your own behalf, instead. Were you involved in the original investigation? If so, how? You've also had a go at the religious beliefs of others here, so: what are your own? Also, what's with the compulsion of discussing addresses and birthdates, while shrouding yourself in anonymity? I presume you're a member of the FoBSM, too. That behaviour's right up their alley. As to this: 'They are only interested in fuelling a hate campaign begun four decades ago because that is all they have in their dull, miserable, meaningless lives', you do understand it takes two to tango, right? I've seen little from yourself here apart from bile, so if there's a hate campaign going on, you're perpetuating one of your own. Perhaps you should follow the 'lead' of the President of the VRS, for which you 'work', and ignore Dave. And Jamie, will you disclose what your mum said about this fandango? Was it, indeed, all for a 'laugh' as she told the court?
• Timelord November 17, 2011
  Jamie, you've just proved Vampirologists point - that all you do is call people names and so forth. Are you really that stupid?
• A Facebook user November 17, 2011
  Nice try :-) I have been to the Flemming though and the foods very nice there if you do decide to visit. Bit far out to be my local though, considering it's about 10 miles from where I live. But you have put me in mind of an idea, I am quite well known in a few pubs in Southampton, (it's one of the advantages of having a job and a social life and not sitting gibbering in front of a computer all day). I'm going to print off a few copies of the funny pic and pin them up around Southamptons pubs. Share the wealth, that's what I always say and people could use a laugh in these troubled times :-)) Thanks for giving me the idea 'vampirologist' I'm sure you've made Sean very proud.
• TheVampirologist November 17, 2011
  "Trust me, that's not the worst I could've said," says Hogg after publishing on Facebook that Bishop Seán Manchester is "a fuckin' lowlife." What could he possibly say that is worse than that? I and others would be interested to know. Hogg also somewhat unintelligently states: "I know you're too ashamed to admit your connection to the VRS, anyway. But do keep pretending you're merely 'a friend'." Is he really that stupid? My blogs include one titled "Vampire Research Society." I have even provided links to it on this very thread. My connection to the VRS is therefore obvious to a blind man at night in a coal mine! Link: http://vampireresearchsociety.blogspot.com
• TheVampirologist November 17, 2011
  "The landlord of my local pub liked it so much he printed it off and stuck it up behind the bar where it know takes pride of place next to the darts team," says Jamie Farrant. Ha! Ha! Is that The Fleming Arms in Southampton SO18 2QN? Must pay it a visit one day. It's funny how the son of Farrant knows only how to spread his father's pernicious propaganda without knowing any of the facts. Then he wonders why his father comes in for a severe drubbing! Does he really not understand it is because all the malice being spouted by himself about Seán Manchester comes exclusively from David Farrant and absolutely nobody else. Anyone with any intelligence sees past all the bile and vindictiveness issuing from Farrant and son who always resort to making personal attacks of a defamatory nature and never engage in the topic itself. They are only interested in fuelling a hate campaign begun four decades ago because that is all they have in their dull, miserable, meaningless lives. Farrant cannot answer any questions because to do so would straight away reveal his contradictory claims and deceitful stratagems. He is a compulsive liar. His eldest son is no different.
• TheVampirologist November 17, 2011
  "Sorting papers and office work isn't a crime. Neither is being bilingual," says Tony Sheridan. Did I say either were a crime? I don't think so. I have, however, read Trish Jing Jai's various comments elsewhere and stand by my statement that she is clueless about occidental occultism and "sorts office papers" for an imaginary organisation that doesn't have an office, and exists in name only. All she has done on this blog is parrot the lies told to her by David Farrant who is also clueless when it comes to the occult. She is just one more in a long line of dupes used to do his dirty work. She will not last. They never do. The penny will drop one day. Trish Jing Jai talks about Buddhism as if it is a religion. It is not a religion. It has never claimed to be one. It is an oriental philosophy. Note the different bewteen religion and philisophy. They are not the same. She and others on here have also discussed what is assumed to be my religion when I have not. So much is assumption and David Farrant's perverted propaganda.
• A Facebook user November 17, 2011
  Jamie, ' .... Yes I have talked to my mum thanks....' Oh? What did she say about it? Trish, 'And another think for you Mr Vampirologist. Have you ever had thinking that every time you make hate website or say cruel thing you hurt Jesus heart? All Christian known this from first learn, to be kind and to love another man.' It's a real shame you've been exposed to that. For starters, Vampy hasn't even said he's Christian, but is more than willing to criticise others for not upholding all the values of the same religion! Clearly he's forgotten 'He who is without sin...' Ironically, he's also ignoring his 'friend' - a Bishop, no less - who discourages people from interacting with David and the like (you can see why). Yet, he likes to call *others* hypocritical. This feud is so silly. Unfortunately, many get caught in its crossfire. That said, I think you're handling it well.
• A Facebook user November 17, 2011
  'According to David Farrant, Seán Manchester was "basically trying to use the official investigation into an unexplained phenomenon at Highgate Cemetery for [his] own personal advantages, which included giving unauthorised information to the Press ." ' Something else amusing about that: who authorised an 'official' investigation, anyway? Certainly not the owners of the cemetery. As it stands, the earliest reference to the BOS was on the 27th of Feb. Dave had plenty of time to clear that up, but didn't. And if Manny *was* a member of Dave's group at the time, he certainly didn't disclose it then, either. So, who's hijacking whose group here? That said, I certainly don't buy that it was founded in the 1860s. 'David Farrant's eldest son (born 9 November 1967) is part of his father's forty-year-old hate campaign, opening anti-Seán Manchester blogs and also regularly posting malice on Facebook' to be fair on Jamie (and he can correct me if I'm wrong here), he wouldn't've been drawn into this nonsense, if it wasn't for Manchester's minions posting about him online, to show what a negligent father Dave was. He simply got caught in the crossfire. Is it any wonder he's now come on as an 'enemy'? To my knowledge, he and Dave were estranged for some time (apologies if I'm getting this wrong, Jamie) and who knows, maybe Manny unintentionally brought them together? On a personal level, Vampy, if someone was slagging your dad off online, wouldn't you be as keen to get back at 'em as you are on Manchester's behalf...even though he's publicly discouraged such actions? ' In case anyone is wondering who Trish Jing Jai is, she was publicly declared to be in charge of the "British Psychic and Occult Society" and the "Highgate Vampire Society" recently by David Farrant. ' Methinks he was taking the piss.
• A Facebook user November 17, 2011
  Vampy, 'I am not "ashamed" of where I figure in all this, contrary to Hogg's jaundiced view of anything and everything connected to the Highgate Vampire case.' Nah, I still think you're too ashamed to reveal it. 'Who the hell does Hogg think he is to describe anyone he does not know in that way?' Trust me, that's not the worst I could've said. 'He repeatedly reminds everyone of his so-called "neutrality" while at the same time collaborating with those in the Farrant camp. For example, the group he recently began on Facebook with Redmond McWilliams called "The Highgate Vampire Appreciation Society" only has members who are sympathetic supporters of David Farrant.' And that's a 'collaboration', how? Manchester sympathisers aren't banned from it. 'Hogg provides those who collaborate in Farrant's hate campaign against Seán Manchester with any assistance he can.' Like what? 'Don Ecker is a friend of Hogg whom Hogg clearly admires. Yet Ecker's illicit pamphlet supposedly exposing everything about the case is published from Farrant's bedsitting room under Farrant's imprint and is nothing more than a rehash of Farrant's vindictive propaganda with stolen images of the usual target also provided by Farrant.' And, as usual, you're misrepresenting it. If you want to hurl claims of 'bias' about, then why don't you mention that Don also went out of his way to ask Manchester questions, only to be stonewalled by his 'secretaries'? You can't whinge about it after, if it's too 'one-sided'. 'Farrant's son has also assisted been assisted by Hogg with him providing Jamie Farrant with anti-Seán Manchester material linked to his own blog.' You mean I provided him with a link citing various usernames Manchester allegedly uses. And? 'Therefore, I want absolutely nothing to do with this hypocrite and will certainly not respond to any of his questions.' Really? You can't seem to stop banging on *about* me, but you can't answer basic questions on your affiliations? Now *that's* hypocritical. But it's cool, Vampy. I know you're too ashamed to admit your connection to the VRS, anyway. But do keep pretending you're merely 'a friend'. ;)
• A Facebook user November 16, 2011
  FOR TRISH I really wouldn’t take too much notice of ‘Vampireologist’s’ ravings, Trish. These only reflect ‘cut & pasted’ material (published statements which he just keeps repeating on the Internet and elsewhere) which he publishes using a fake identity. I have told you who he REALLY is! So please, just do not allow this to affect you. I know that you respect other peoples’ religions, including the Christian faith; but rest assured, he is most certainly not a genuine Christian! He is a fake – nothing less, and nothing more! He believes in literal ‘vampires’ (or proclaims he does, mainly with the intention of creating controversial publicity for himself), but if ever he encountered anything even resembling one, he’s run so fast that he’d trip over his cassock! So just take no notice of his asinine comments. Incidentally (as I have asked you before), please just call me ‘David’ now – ‘Mr David’ sounds a little too formal! See you and Tony very soon again I hope, and pleased you got your work problem sorted out. For the moment, David
• A Facebook user November 16, 2011
  And another think for you Mr Vampirologist. Have you ever had thinking that every time you make hate website or say cruel thing you hurt Jesus heart? All Christian known this from first learn, to be kind and to love another man. So do you have ignorance that you do wrong or do you not have care and love for Jesus is a mask like you wear for lady from newspaper? I think you make your Jesus sad every day Mr Vampirologist.
• A Facebook user November 16, 2011
  Mr Vampirologist I have your remarks and do not think I do not understand what you say about me. You remind me of stage performer in my country called. โก๊ะตี๋ He very funny, but sometime he have self doubt and decide that if he stop being funny he choose life of a monk instead. But you do both comedy routine when you make lady Press Reporter think you are Magician at children birthday party with mask and big bang, AND be a monk with wife. So perhaps you appreciate his act. You do not have good to say about foreign person, homosexuality person, atheistic person, is very old fashioned and make young person not want to join your church which it seems is focus on dislike and blog of evil and being a spy like in James Bond film. Why you have make fan club for Mr David on internet is mystery with picture of many many friend and even also of me. And yes my English writing is not so good as yet but I am trying and fund my own study and work hard. You say I 'hasn't a clue about any aspect of occidental occultism in general or the Highgate Vampire case in particular.' I have you to know that in my country I am study at university and am write academic book. In England I serve food. With no money and language basic as humble man if you come to my country maybe you work in bar or serve food, but I will not call you stupid because you are an alien. I take as compliment that you come to learn about my country. In my religion which is Buddhist we value humbleness. In yours you talk of big house and hate all with no charity. Buddhism is Mr Kevin's religion also, he is not lover of Satan as you know but still say, and maybe this is why he does not want to be your good friend any longer. Occultism of the West and the East different yes but maybe you not want to compare and contrast as scholastics say because you want to know all of one small thing so sound wise man but in truth speak of hate as doctrine of life and not know the big world outside of your oh so big house at all. I know men who live in mud hut who have higher moral. Monk in my country live to serve God and help fellow mankind not take wife and big house and expensive food and cloth and hate all and wish them ill luck.
• A Facebook user November 16, 2011
  So 'vampirologist' is your real name is it, give us a break. !!! In answer to the earlier posts about me the 'malicious' facebook post I put on was actually a pic of herr manny pretending to toot on a saxophone. I added the caption "if he blows any harder he's sure to poo himself" Everyone thought it was funny (apart from the nazi nutjob of course). The landlord of my local pub liked it so much he printed it off and stuck it up behind the bar where it know takes pride of place next to the darts team. .... Yes I have talked to my mum thanks.... funny how Seans sock puppet asks me why I haven't seen my dad when Sean has ignored his own two sons from his first marriage (which incidently ended with him being divorced for his adulterous ways) for about the same amount of time. ....I'm not against catholics in general, I was using it to demonstate yet more ofSeans hypocrisy! And finally I'm gainfully employed thanks, I'm not stupid enough to say where though given Seans penchant for sending pornography and hatemail to peoples employers. I've already told the company about him just in case, can't be too careful where psychos are concerned after all. Now lets watch as this all gets turned onto David like usual :-))
• A Facebook user November 16, 2011
  You don't know the first thing about Trish, mate. Sorting papers and office work isn't a crime. Neither is being bilingual. Can you speak Thai? I thought not. If I were you, I'd think twice before I started slagging her in public.
• TheVampirologist November 16, 2011
  Does this mean "Tony Sheridan" (not his real name and the picture he uses is 1950s rock singer Eddie Cochran) will be invited to Trish Jing Jai's for Christmas dinner this year? In case anyone is wondering who Trish Jing Jai is, she was publicly declared to be in charge of the "British Psychic and Occult Society" and the "Highgate Vampire Society" recently by David Farrant. The only problem with that move is that she barely speaks a word of English and hasn't a clue about any aspect of occidental occultism in general or the Highgate Vampire case in particular. Not that it really matters because the "British Psychic and Occult Society" and the "Highgate Vampire Society" exist in name only - rather like "Tony Sheridan" previously known as "Tony Basingstoke" and previous to that known as ... etc etc. I'm sure you're beginning to get the picture.
• A Facebook user November 16, 2011
  Does this mean David Farrant will not be invited to Sean Manchester's for Christmas dinner this year?
• TheVampirologist November 16, 2011
  David Farrant's eldest son (born 9 November 1967) is part of his father's forty-year-old hate campaign, opening anti-Seán Manchester blogs and also regularly posting malice on Facebook. That makes him "hateful." Farrant's son claims here and elsewhere, eg Facebook, that being a Catholic automatically means you support paedophilia. That makes him "ignorant." He calls other people "lying crackpots" when his own father's entire life has been a chronicle of defamation, deceit and derangement. For example, David Farrant was examined by two court appointed psychiatrists whilst on remand at Brixton Prison in August 1970. One of them refused to declare him sane. In other words, Farrant is an officially a certified crackpot, according to at least one psychiatrist. The other psychiatrist wasn't able to reach a decision over Farrant's sanity. Throughout his life Farrant has never shown any remorse for his behaviour and crimes. Indeed, he has always sought to capitalise on them - bragging to the press and regurgitating them in self-published pamphlets crammed with libel. He also likes to send malicious pamphlets to his victims. Hence, Seán Manchester's wife and her family received copies of Farrant's hate-filled tracts, as have numerous friends and colleagues of Seán Manchester. One in particular, Diana Brewester, received Farrant's hate mail in the last months of her life (she died eight years ago). In the disgusting pamphlet full of Farrant's familiar anti-Seán Manchester rubbish she was shocked to discover that her private address had been published in full. A few weeks later she died of cancer. Diana Brewester was a close friend of Seán Manchester. She was also his London Secretary. This alone made her a target for David Farrant.
• Anonymous November 16, 2011
  Jamie Farrant ignores all questions put to him. Has he asked his mother what was going on in 1967 when his father claims without any supporting evidence he was heavily into occultism and the founder of an occult group? I would equally be interested to know what Jamie Farrant exactly does for a living? He seems to have lots of time on his hands posting here from day to day. I believe his father has barely worked more than a couple of weeks in his entire life. Is it a case of like father like son? Or does he just not want to face the facts? The most pressing question, which I seriously doubt he will ever answer, is what made him decide to get in touch with his father after totally ignoring him for over forty years?
• Timelord November 15, 2011
  And your daddy Jamie/Arrald is just a sub-standard Albert Steptoe, nyehhhh!
• A Facebook user November 15, 2011
  First my 'soul's lost to the devil' now I'm 'hateful and ignorant' ! Good to see the spirit of christian charity is alive and well in titular 'bishop' Sean Manchester. It seems strange that a self professed man of God pours vitriol and malice on anybody that dares question him. If he didn't want public scrutinity then why did he release his thinly disguised Dracula rewrite 'The Highgate Vampire' in which he starred as a sub standard Van Helsing figure! People were bound to laugh at him and with almost 12 copies sold word was bound to get around :-)))) To be serious though, maybe it's time he accepted the consequences of his own actions and stopped blaming everybody else, he claims he's a public figure after all and unfortunately for him it's open season on lying crackpots!
• TheVampirologist November 15, 2011
  According to David Farrant, Seán Manchester was "basically trying to use the official investigation into an unexplained phenomenon at Highgate Cemetery for [his] own personal advantages, which included giving unauthorised information to the Press ." He does not identify the "unauthorised information" because he can't, as the only official investigation was led by Seán Manchester - something Farrant himself recognised at the time as intimated in newspaper articles such as the front-page feature of the Hampstead & Highgate Express, 6 March 1970, but most convincingly Farrant's own correspondence, especially his prison correspondence of August 1970, sent to the then president of the British Occult Society. Those who knew Farrant in the relevant period will confirm that he regarded his forays to the cemetery as nothing more than "a laugh" after the pubs had shut. Some of his friends colluded in fabricated letters to Gerald Isaaman, editor of the Hampstead & Highgate Express, and we know who these people are. They even signed the fake letters in their own name for the most part. Thus Farrant attempted hoax a ghost story to dupe the public. He was never serious about the paranormal about which he knew next to nothing. His own wife gave testimony under oath at her husband's notorious trials at the Old Bailey in June 1974, as recorded by The Sun newspaper's court reporter on 21 June 1974: “The wife of self-styled occult priest David Farrant told yesterday of giggles in the graveyard when the pubs had closed. ‘We would go in, frighten ourselves to death and come out again,’ she told an Old Bailey jury. Attractive Mary Farrant — she is separated from her husband and lives in Southampton — said they had often gone to London’s Highgate Cemetery with friends ‘for a bit of a laugh.’ But they never caused any damage. ‘It was just a silly sort of thing that you do after the pubs shut,’ she said. Mrs Farrant added that her husband’s friends who joined in the late night jaunts were not involved in witchcraft or the occult. She had been called as a defence witness by her 28-year-old husband.” Farrant's ex-girlfriend Victoria Jervis' revelations under oath when called as a witness reveal the true extent of Farrant's deception: "I have tried to put most of what happened out of my mind. The false letters I wrote to a local paper were to stimulate publicity for the accused. I saw him almost every weekend in the second half of 1972 and I went to Spain with him for a fortnight at the end of June that same year. I was arrested with him in Monken Hadley Churchyard. That incident upset me very much. Afterwards, my doctor prescribed tranquilisers for me." Facing David Farrant in court to address him, Victoria Jervis added: "You have photograhed me a number of times in your flat with no clothes on. One photograph was published in 1972 with a false caption claiming I was a member of your Society, which I never was." On another occasion, she recalled, she'd written psuedonymously to a local newspaper at Farrant's request "to stimulate publicity for the accused." That really sums up Farrant's real involvement and integrity as a commentator on these matters.
• TheVampirologist November 15, 2011
  I am not "ashamed" of where I figure in all this, contrary to Hogg's jaundiced view of anything and everything connected to the Highgate Vampire case. It is just that I will not answer questions to satisfy his curiosity when he refers (as he did recently on Facebook) to Seán Manchester as "a fuckin' lowlife" and "a despot." Who the hell does Hogg think he is to describe anyone he does not know in that way? He repeatedly reminds everyone of his so-called "neutrality" while at the same time collaborating with those in the Farrant camp. For example, the group he recently began on Facebook with Redmond McWilliams called "The Highgate Vampire Appreciation Society" only has members who are sympathetic supporters of David Farrant. Co-administrator Redmond McWilliams is a friend of Farrant who has visited the ex-convict at his Muswell Hill Road bedsitting room in North London while Farrant, in turn, has visited McWilliams in Morden, Surrey. Hogg provides those who collaborate in Farrant's hate campaign against Seán Manchester with any assistance he can. Don Ecker is a friend of Hogg whom Hogg clearly admires. Yet Ecker's illicit pamphlet supposedly exposing everything about the case is published from Farrant's bedsitting room under Farrant's imprint and is nothing more than a rehash of Farrant's vindictive propaganda with stolen images of the usual target also provided by Farrant. Incidentally, no mention is ever made by anyone "sensitive" over un-pc so-called "homophobic" remarks regarding Ecker's anti-homosexual jibes and gay-bashing images on his Facebook wall. Why? Because he is so firmly in the Farrant camp it's as if he's lodged up Farrant's arse! Let anyone else be critical of sodomitical acts, eg on religious grounds, and they will be condemned straight by the liberal Hogg and the usual culprits. Farrant's son has also assisted been assisted by Hogg with him providing Jamie Farrant with anti-Seán Manchester material linked to his own blog. If Hogg is "impartial," as he claims so often to be, why would he be helping the hateful and ignorant son of Farrant? Therefore, I want absolutely nothing to do with this hypocrite and will certainly not respond to any of his questions.
• A Facebook user November 14, 2011
  Vampy, 'David Farrant utters such bare-faced lies and imagines people will simply take his word for anything he claims such as "founding" the British Occult Society in 1967, which, coincidentally, is the same year (on June 21) when Seán Manchester became its last (as it turned out) president.' Let's resolve this issue once and for all: prove it. What proof is there that the organisation existed before 1970? That goes for both you and Dave. Something contemporary. Some kind of documentation, not anecdotes. Dave, 'You were basically trying to use the official investigation into an unexplained phenomenon at Highgate Cemetery for your own personal advantages, which included giving unauthorised information to the Press and making up an outrageous story that the entity that had been witnessed there was', as ridiculous as you keep saying it was, you've also said your biggest 'regret' was going along with it. Therefore, you're just as responsible for 'creating' the vampire as Sean. And let's not forget you resorted to staging pics in burial vaults for cash, so best you get off your high horse, Dave. Indeed, going by your other 'evidence' ('The Magister', treaties, duels, etc.) it suggests that Manchester's vampire theory wasn't the only thing you 'went along' with... As to Gerry Isaamann, the editor of the Ham & High, when he said he treated the whole thing as a laugh, he wasn't just referring to Sean's involvement, but yours, too. Don't believe me? Ask him. That goes for anyone here. He's still kickin'. 'We should remember that it was Mr Manchester himself who approached Gerald Isaaman with this ridiculous explanation of the genuine phenomenon that had been reported at Highgate Cemetery', and we should remember you were happy to pose alongside Manchester the following week, discussing the vampire theory and posing for various pics with stakes and crosses and conducting a re-enactment of your 'vigils' on TV...only a couple of weeks after you'd been released on the charge of being in an 'enclosed area for an unlawful purposes', i.e. the intent to hunt vampires (see: the 24 hours clip you posted on your YouTube channel). You can't keep deflecting blame onto Sean. You're *both* responsible. No amount of whitewashing is gonna change that. The claims and counter-claims you both profer ('I founded the Society!' 'No, I did!') keep going around in circles. Provide proof. Let's see who's got a better case. And Vampy, *still* not saying you're involved with the VRS? Interesting... I guess you're ashamed of such associations. I can't blame you.
• Timelord November 14, 2011
  An outrageous story, as you call it, David, that you have used YOURSELF for your own deeds for the past 41 years. You really cannot see the irony and counter-productiveness of your attitudes and actions over 5 decades David. Oh I see, it's all a joke isn't it? When you call your hate pamphlets or hate books Something and the Highgate Vampire, it's all a joke ain't it Dave? You are just treating your readership with contempt and worse, you seem to become Private Walker with it too. A Cockney Spiv.
• A Facebook user November 14, 2011
  You know very well why we broke all communication with yourself in 1970, Sean. You were basically trying to use the official investigation into an unexplained phenomenon at Highgate Cemetery for your own personal advantages, which included giving unauthorised information to the Press and making up an outrageous story that the entity that had been witnessed there was, in fact, a ‘blood-sucking vampire’ (a term you used quite literally). You visited the offices of the Ham & High newspaper in February 1970 with your live-in girlfriend Jacqueline Cooper (who was later to become ‘Lusia’ in your self-published book) and there spoke to the then editor of that newspaper, Mr Gerald Isaaman. You were dressed in a red, velvet lined black cloak and black hat, and carried a walking cane. You told him that the ghost that had been sighted at Highgate Cemetery was really a ‘vampire’. To quote your own words (which were duly published): “The phenomenon reported by Highgate people in letters to the Ham and High is not merely the apparition of an earthbound spirit, which is relatively harmless, but much worse – that of a wampyr or, as it is more popularly known, a vampire.” His theory is that the King Vampire of the Undead, originally a nobleman who dabbled in black magic in medieval Wallachia, “somewhere near Turkey”, walks again. “His followers eventually brought him to England in a coffin at the beginning of the eighteenth century and bought a house for him in the “West End”, said Mr Manchester. “His unholy resting place became Highgate Cemetery.” “When parts of Britain were plagued by vampirism centuries ago, the Highgate areas was the centre of a lot of activity. It has been ever since.” “And now that there is so much desecration by Satanism, I am convinced that this has been happening in Highgate Cemetery in an attempt by a body of Satanists to resurrect the King Vampire.” “We would like to exorcise the vampire by the traditional and approved manner – drive a stake through its heart with one blow just before dawn between Friday and Saturday, cut off its head with a gravedigger’s shovel, and burn what remains. This is what the clergy did centuries ago. But we’d breaking the law today.” He learned about vampires from books by a clergyman, the Rev Montague Summers, an authority on the occult. “And Bram Stoker’s novels are based on facts, what people told him they had heard,” he added. It is perhaps interesting to note, that after he started this ‘vampire scare story’, he was to later to deny that he ever said any of the things attributed to him by respected editor Gerald Isaaman, and which Mr Isaaman took down in person when Mr Manchester and ‘Lusia’ visited his offices in Hampstead. Trying to explain the ‘vampire dress’ in which he was attired, Mr Manchester retorted (or at least on of his aliases did on his behalf) that he was on his way to the opera and thus just wearing the required dress. I remember I asked him to name the opera he was on his way to see. He deliberately avoided answering my query; perhaps for obvious reasons! We should remember that it was Mr Manchester himself who approached Gerald Isaaman with this ridiculous explanation of the genuine phenomenon that had been reported at Highgate Cemetery. Many people would describe his actions as a well-timed publicity stunt. Whatever, such declarations about this ‘blood-sucking vampire’ first came directly from Mr Manchester himself. David Farran, President, British Psychic and Occult Society.
• A Facebook user November 14, 2011
  More rubbish about libels, give it up Sean, everyones laughing at you already, why not give up while your behind :-)))
• Timelord November 14, 2011
  Bloody hell Jamie/Arrald, you forget so quickly regarding your constant snipes, innuendos and libels against BSM.
• A Facebook user November 14, 2011
  There we go, back to the old Sean we all know and love.... insults, invective and accusations of libel, Didn't take long did it. Well if you think I'm being libellous I invite you to take it further, although be warned, with the amount of photographic and documentary evidence I've got you're on a hiding to nothing, why not save the money and buy yourself some tissues to wipe the drool off your chin :-)
• TheVampirologist November 14, 2011
  David Farrant utters such bare-faced lies and imagines people will simply take his word for anything he claims such as "founding" the British Occult Society in 1967, which, coincidentally, is the same year (on June 21) when Seán Manchester became its last (as it turned out) president. Perhaps Farrant's son should ask his mother about what was really happening in the year she married Farrant and afterwards because it was a far cry from anything now being retrospectively alleged. Tony Hill offered his coal bunker in the communal cellar under his ground floor flat in Archway Road when Farrant was declared bankrupt and was evicted from his flat (also in Archway Road). Farrant jumped at the chance and remained Hill’s “tenant” for the period from August 1969 to August 1970. It was during this time that Hill colluded with Farrant to fake a ghost story in the local press and took photographs of him prancing about graveyards for that purpose. Then Farrant heard about the legendary vampire at Highgate Cemetery in pubs he frequented and thought it a convenient bandwagon to hop on after already having written to his local newspaper pretending to have seen a ghost no less than three times at the beginning of the year. Hill took more pictures of Farrant brandishing stakes and goodness knows what else. Some were published in newspapers. When Farrant tired of exploiting the vampire situation he joined the growing witchcraft craze and became known as a “wicked witch” locally because of the nasty pranks and evil stunts he pulled on people. This behaviour quickly landed him in jail with a stiff sentence, by which time Tony Hill was giving him a very wide berth. Farrant was always his own worst enemy. His problem was that he made countless threats that he could not back up. Journalists understandably tired of him. Everyone tired of him. Farrant soon became the lonely and pathetic figure he is today, a worn-out shell filled with simmering malice toward those he despises and secretly envies; a talentless non-entity immersed in his own foolishness; a man eaten away with deep hatred who spends his existence in a bedsitting room from where he self-publishes streams of bile in stapled pamphlets which same propaganda he infects multifarious forums and blogs. Born in 1946, this tragic old man still shuffles back and forth to the sorting office in London’s Muswell Hill to collect his mail from the post office box address he has been hiding behind for years. Yet, as Seán Manchester once observed, Farrant’s real harm is self-inflicted. A vagrant soul who lost his way as a youth and never regained it; a man who early on made a pact with the Devil. This legacy has now been inherited by his son whose ignorace is matched only by that of his father.
• TheVampirologist November 14, 2011
  "This vile practise has been going on for centuries and is well known but it didn't stop him claiming to be part of it.," says Jamie Farrant. We know that this vile practice has been going on in all walks of life, organisations and institutions (not just churches), but can Jamie Farrant explain his libellous allegation regarding Seán Manchester "being part of it"? No, he cannot. If he means that his being a Christian and a Catholic makes him part of what other wrongdoers get up to that is an extremely unintelligent argument. Indeed, it is one of the most stupid and desperate attempts at defamation of sombody I have heard in a long time. If that was the case you would be unable to belong to any organisation because perverts are literally everywhere. He only needs ask his father who appointed one to run the "junior department" of his so-called society.
• A Facebook user November 14, 2011
  Vampy, 'David Farrant has a curious way of attempting to mirror back his own behaviour onto anyone who mentions it in a revealing and critical way.' True. I'm still waiting to hear about the so-called 'untrue propaganda' I supposedly spread. It seems like hit-and-run comments are the order of the day here. Incidentally, V, you're yet to clarify exactly what *your* 'role' in this thing is. If find it hard to believe that you're a mere 'friend' of Manchester's. Are you affiliated with the VRS? Yes or no. Also, do you acknowledge that Sean Manchester featured as 'The Magister' in the Sue Kentish article?
• Timelord November 14, 2011
  Jamie, you seem to swim in a sea of ignorance. And you seem to enjoy swimming in that sea of ignorance. I don't know which is worse.
• A Facebook user November 14, 2011
  Just a quick one, Harold's actually spelt with an 'H' ... just like 'hyppocrite' funny that!
• A Facebook user November 14, 2011
  Ok, I'll play, ..... going by your logic that makes you (oops Sean, my bad) both a devil worshiper AND a nazi, oh yeah and batman to boot, care to carry this on? :-)))
• Timelord November 14, 2011
  So Jamie/Arrald, if your daddy isn't a devil worshipper for dressing in devil worshipping clothes, neither could anyone else necessarily be a Nazi for wearing a Nazi uniform. Thanks for the clarifcation there Jamie/Arrald.
• Timelord November 14, 2011
  Vampirologist, it does seem very hypocritical of David's camp to discuss paedophila in the ROMAN Catholic church, yet appoint someone into the role of "Head of the Junior Department". That, pardoning the pun, is like appointing Count Dracula as head of the National Blood Service! Still hypocrisy and David Farrant walk hand in hand down the paths of Highgate.... and into the nearest public house.
• Timelord November 14, 2011
  You and your daddy Jamie/Arrald have been told constantly I'm not BSM, so really any protestations or comments that I am not are falling on your incredibly deaf ears. Don't forget your daddy accuses anyone of arguing with him of being BSM, indeed I believe he also accused Anthony Hogg of being BSM!
• A Facebook user November 14, 2011
  Anonymous November 14, 2011 Is "Arrald" a reference to Steptoe Junior from Steptoe & Son and is Daddy Farrant Steptoe Senior? They do look alike when you come to think about it. That we do, I think it must be a spelling mistake, either that or the fact he's not allowed to use sharp objects and can only write in crayon might have something to do with it!
• A Facebook user November 14, 2011
  I love the way you try to turn everything onto David, while constantly moaning about deflection. Getting back to the subject in hand Herr Manny's not in a position to excommunicate anyone seeing as 1, he's not a real bishop and 2, even if he was he was excommunicated himself years ago for various underhand chicanary! I'd be interested to see some evidence of these so called 'campaigns' as well. This vile practise has been going on for centuries and is well known but it didn't stop him claiming to be part of it. ............ I see my question about the mask has been ignored as well, how about this, wear it with one of your silly hats and you could look like Zorro, it might make you a bit better at duelling :-)..... but then you wouldn't be able to beg for donations for some crackpot memorial after all!
• TheVampirologist November 14, 2011
  Speaking as someone who is not Seán Manchester, I can inform the progeny of Farrant that few people have campaigned against paedophile clergy more than Seán Manchester who has excommunicated them and called for life imprisonment to be given to those found guilty of child molestation. He has been exceptionally critical of churches and other institutions who have turned a blind eye to what is going on under their noses, and when some years back he named and shamed some of those clerics who fell into this category his website was disabled. One of those collaborating with the paedophile clerics to have his site closed was a certain David Farrant who, let us never forget, appointed a convicted sex offender as "head of the junior department" of his so-called Highgate Vampire Society - a shadowy group run exclusively by Farrant..
• Anonymous November 14, 2011
  Is "Arrald" a reference to Steptoe Junior from Steptoe & Son and is Daddy Farrant Steptoe Senior? They do look alike when you come to think about it.
• A Facebook user November 14, 2011
  Well that's easy, the answers no, good to see you're not denying you're Sean anymore though, maybe there's hope for you after all. Heres a question: when I asked you about your connection to an organisation that covers up child abuse and your hyppocrisy in denouncing homosexuality yet advocating said organisation you said to contact you as BSM. Well I did this earlier today on the BSM fb page only to find my find my question deleted without even the courtesy of an answer. So I'll ask you again liar or hyppocrite? which is it (I'd go with liar if I were you, obviously that's considerably better than the alternative) Little bit of friendly advice there. Have you still got the mask by the way?
• Timelord November 14, 2011
  Arrald/Jamie, answer the question and not deflect it. It's a particular trait of your dear daddy.
• TheVampirologist November 14, 2011
  This is how Sue Kentish's article in the News of the World, 23 September 1973, opens: "By day, 29-year-old David Farrant is a hospital porter. But at night, he takes on a far less valuable role. He is High Priest of a witchcraft coven and as founder of the weird British Occult Society [sic], has an evil hold over 300 misguided people. But for the results of his actions, this scruffy little witch could be laughed at. But no one can laugh at a man who admits slitting the throat of a live cat before launching a blood-smeared orgy. Or at a man who has helped reduce at least two young women to frightened misery. Farrant runs his wretched cult from a cluttered flat above a chemist's shop in Archway Road, Highgate, London. When I first met him, he seemed normal enough. But over the course of a few weeks, I got to know him better. I found him to be totally besotted by witchcraft and the occult and ready to do anything in pursuit of both." Farrant is later quoted in the article saying: "My curses have never failed, as far as I know. Situations have always righted themselves after I put a curse on. Others will tell you how I reduced one man to a mental breakdown and in the end he begged me to remove the curse." Sue Kentish continues: "One woman drawn into Farrant's loathsome cult is 42-year-old Mrs Sadie MacVie. A divorcee with a teenage daughter, she explained how she encountered the witches. 'I suddenly turned cold towards the fellow I was going with. I didn't want to sleep with him any more'." Earlier in the same article, Farrant describes a ritual sacrifice he undertook and is quoted as saying: "I did not enjoy having to kill the cat, but for one particular part of the ritual it was necessary. The sacrifice of a living creature represents the ultimate act in invoking a diety. I do not see animal sacrifice as drastic as people have made it out to be ... at least, I anathaesthetised the cat before I had to kill it." Sue Kentish continues: "With a shrug of the shoulders he admitted mercilessly: "If somebody crosses me or my friends, I will use a curse, but only if it becomes necessary as a last resort'." I would be interested to know exactly how David Farrant went about anathaesthetising cats before driving his ritual dagger into them?
• TheVampirologist November 14, 2011
  The difference between insanity and genius is only measured by success, and these small-minded commentators on Seán Manchester are obviously deeply envious of his immense success. Just take a look at David Farrant and Gareth Medway on this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y0MLpMxUojQ These people who for years have delighted in describing Seán Manchester as "bonkers" are themselves little more than infantile cretins. The truth behind the Nazi uniform story can be found at this link: http://www.holygrail-church.fsnet.co.uk/TheThorneConspiracy.htm And if Kevin Chesham, according to Farrant, doesn't want to have anything to do with Seán Manchester he has surely got a curious way of going about it by allowing Farrant to publish his image clasping an item intended to give offence to Seán Manchester and agreeing to be video interviewed where he talks only about Seán Manchester. If what Farrant is claiming about this interview is remotely accurate, then Chesham is exhibiting a degree of paranioa and obsession with the man he depended on for references in order to find employment not that dissimilar to the inveterate liar Farrant in whom he obviously has so much more in common.
• A Facebook user November 14, 2011
  Timelord November 14, 2011 Prince Harry was once pictured in a Nazi uniform. Therefore he is a Nazi? I'm sure your father has been pictured in Devil worshipping robes. Is your father a Devil worshipper, Jamie/Arrald?...........Sean, you've been pictured in occult robes on more than one occasion, in fact you also used to wear a batman mask and call yourself the 'magister' Do you really want to go down this road?
• A Facebook user November 14, 2011
  Oh yeah, I almost forgot, on Seans fb page he writes this: About Bishop Seán Manchester champions true spirituality and traditional values in a world consumed by soul-killing materialism and greed. How odd then that he insists on letting everbody know he lives in a big house, and indeed goes on to descibe the architecture of his road just in case anyone thinks he doesn't. Gotta love his hyppocritical hissy fits, sheer entertainment if nothing else!
• Timelord November 14, 2011
  Prince Harry was once pictured in a Nazi uniform. Therefore he is a Nazi? I'm sure your father has been pictured in Devil worshipping robes. Is your father a Devil worshipper, Jamie/Arrald?
• A Facebook user November 14, 2011
  This is great Sean, you've obviously forgotten about the photo of you in your nazi uniform which is doing the rounds. Everybody's seen it so why bother lying :-)
• TheVampirologist November 14, 2011
  David Farrant some time back commented on his eldest son's blog: "The mysterious 'black magic Nazi room' is of course an open secret by now and has been witnessed by many many people." So where are all these people who have witnessed a "black magic Nazi room" supposedly in the dwelling of an author who publicly recorded many years ago in his works Farrant's own black magic and Nazi associations? David Farrant has a curious way of attempting to mirror back his own behaviour onto anyone who mentions it in a revealing and critical way. The fact is that Farrant often cultivated friends with neo-Nazi sympathies down the years (people like Kenneth Frewin, John Pope, Philippe Welte, Jean-Paul Bourre, Ian Gomeche etc), and his association with the trappings of black magic and those heavily involved in it is what made him notorious in every form of media, not least the gutter press, and in the eyes of a public confronted by his sick craving for attention at any price whether his claims were true or false, and they were clearly overwhelmingly the latter. It still remains puzzling why Kevin Chesham should want to join forces with a degenerate like Farrant. Yet, if we are to believe what we are being told, Chesham has given Farrant carte blanche to publicly attribute anything he wants to his new friend. Chesham knows full well that the "information" supposedly issuing from him is counterfeit. For example, Farrant claims on his own blog that Seán Manchester "once boasted to Kev about having fraudulently put people’s names on a far right message forum." Yet Farrant and Chesham are aware that it was established by the police in 2005 that the culprit responsible for this was an internet hacker by the name of Ian Keith Gomeche who posted on Combat 18's forum pictures of Seán Manchester and - in a separate incident to heighten the "feud" - Farrant, Medway and Demant. Who can fathom the workings of a deranged mind? What we do know for a fact ist that Farrant was a friend and ally of Gomeche, as confirmed by their email exchanges, and it was Farrant who supplied Gomeche with pictures of Seán Manchester along with his private address for publication on Combat 18's hate site. Gomeche found the pictures of Farrant exactly where Farrant had uploaded them himself on his own forum and used them to stir things up. Some months later, under Section of the Mental Health Act, Gomeche was moved from prison to the Cornhill Psychiatric Hospital in Aberdeen with a preliminary diagnosis of "psychosis." Further tests diagnosed "bi-polar affective disorder with mild schizophrenia". Section and treatment under the Mental Health Act was the preferred resolution at the time. However, it has been explicitly confirmed by the investigating officers that should he be released in the future and re-offend, immediate action will be taken to bring him into custody without delay on first report received by the local police.
• TheVampirologist November 14, 2011
  Kevin Chesham is believed to have turned against his acquaintance of many years when he received from him a gift in the form of Seán Manchester's novel "Carmel" in which the Nazis are parodied and allegorically likened to vampires. After reading it, Chesham was never the same again, according to those who knew him via Seán Manchester. To put things into context, Chesham has for many years been in close contact with a neo-Nazi by the name of Kerry Bolton. Chesham had lived in New Zealand at the time Kerry Bolton was a prominent National Front executive. Furthermore, Kerry Bolton is founder of the Order of the Left Hand Path (renamed Ordo Sinistra Vivendi, then the Order of Deorc Fyre, and in the same year created the Black Order). He was a former member of the Temple of Set (an offshoot of the Church of Satan) and was briefly secretary for the New Zealand Fascist Union. Kerry Bolton's Order was intended to be an activist front promoting an "occult-fascist axis" (something Seán Manchester warns against in his book "From Satan To Christ" published in 1988). A masters thesis written about Kerry Bolton published by the Waikato University titled "Dreamers of the Dark: Kerry Bolton and the Order of the Left Hand Path; a Case-study of a Satanic/Neo-Nazi Synthesis" was pulled from the library pending investigation after Bolton complained to the Vice-Chancellor. It dealt with the link between neo-Nazi and satanic beliefs in New Zealand. Professor Dov Bing, who supervised the thesis, called it a first-class piece of work. Coincidentally, self-proclaimed, albeit pseudo, occultist Farrant founded the Order of the Black Moon in the 1970s and transferred his support to the National Front when he was prevented from standing as an independent Wicca Workers' Party candidate in the British General Election in 1978. The National Front was one of the "other political groups" he was talking about in his letter to the editor of the Hornsey Journal, 21 July 1978, when he states: "I feel that I should set the record straight. In fact, the WWP is a serious political party and has growing support from people all over the country; including other political groups with whom we are now amalgamated.” Ironically, while Seán Manchester has never shown any interest in party politics whatsoever in his life, Chesham is a registered member of the BNP and has attended their functions in Essex. Couple this with Farrant's own NF friends and neo-Nazi connections and you have an entirely different picture to the one Farrant is attempting paint here.
• Timelord November 14, 2011
  If you don't believe in vampires David, why did you say that in 1997 in your badly technically produced "documentary", and why do you suffix your books with the word Vampire? Me thinks you protest too much.
• A Facebook user November 13, 2011
  That opinion does not solely originate from you, 'Timelord', as you well know. That happens, yet again, to be the precise opinion of Mr Sean Manchester who has been obsessively disseminating such propaganda over the internet for many years now, which matches word for word your last post. If you intend to continue repeating Mr Manchester’s insults using identical terminology, as you did on Supernatural World, you cannot blame people for referring to you as one and the same person. That aside, as Gareth pointed out, you really do need to grasp such simple concepts as 'jokes' if you wish to debate in an adult arena. I know many jokes about 'vampires', indeed they make good subject matter for light hearted humour. I do not know any jokes, however, about the BNP and behaviour associated with people who subscribe to their values, and neither would I tell them. Anyone with the slightest awareness of the case is aware that I do not believe in vampires. It is an entirely null point. So again, I suggest that you refer to the actual subject matter of my previous few posts, and stop insulting the intelligence and wasting the time of our fellow posters by attempting to sidetrack the real issues raised therein. But perhaps you do not have any issue with saying that you hero-worship someone with these views and values? Which might explain why you are attempting once more to change the subject back to imaginary ‘vampires’. I suppose an interest and belief in the latter is more publicly acceptable than those which your ‘hero’ holds, although it is, of course, equally outmoded and generally held in disdain by responsible members of society . David Farrant, President British Psychic and Occult Society.
• Timelord November 13, 2011
  Make believe vampires that you said still existed in 1997, David. Don't retrospectively say "it was a joke" because if it were true, then you could say the same about the whole of your testimony in your video, advertised indeed on your own website called, "IN SEARCH OF THE HIGHGATE VAMPIRE". I purchased (when I didn't know any better) this in the same year from Forbidden Planet, London. If it was a parody, why was it the final line in your video? It certainly gives the viewers the assumption that your final words were correct. As for BSM being one of my childhood heroes, that is true. But it also adds to my belief from learning about the case as an adult that you are nothing but a charlatan and an interloper, desperate for notoriety, infamy and perhaps worse pathetically, attention. That's my opinion, not BSMs.
• A Facebook user November 13, 2011
  That is an extremely feeble reply, ‘Timelord’, and obviously intended to detract from serious issues such as those raised in my last post, which ARE relevant to much more important matters than such things as make-believe ‘vampires’. I have already answered your question, in that my comments in that particular film were a send-up of parts of it where I was discussing a handful of cranks who maintained a vampire really existed at Highgate Cemetery. It was a line put in to parody the claims of such people, as I told you. So, question answered…yet again. I think you would be far better advised to stick to the factual statements I made in my last few posts. I appreciate your dismay and automatic rejection of such unpleasant truths being disclosed about someone who you describe as a ‘childhood hero’; however your deep-seated levels of denial are really of no consequence to myself, as I have practical evidence to back up my assertions; assertions I might add about someone I have known for over 40 years and whom you concede you have never even met. Should you continue to refuse to countenance these assertions, the proverbial egg will surely rebound and end up on your own face. David Farrant, President BPOS
• Timelord November 13, 2011
  You said on film in 1997 David that "The vampire still exists" yet you and Gareth claim "it was a joke", yet you expect us to believe that a recorded conversation with someone else saying things that you believe is not a joke? David your double-standards are quite condescending.
• A Facebook user November 13, 2011
  P.P.S. So ‘Vampirologist’ is now trying to pretend that black is white, and that things which happened, never happened. Well that’s exactly where equipment such as cameras and microphones come in handy, Sean. For example, lets just look at this quote ‘Vampirologist’ attributes to Mr Sean Manchester, whom he claims “utterly rejects the malicious falsehood made in Kevin Chesham's name by Farrant […] It did not happen.” Kevin had no need, wish or motivation to make the statements he did in my name. He made them entirely of his own volition and says this on the film. Why, one might ask, would the intended best man at your wedding, former Executor of your Will, and best friend of over 30 years standing wish to do this? Kevin explains this himself on the film, but summarily, he no longer wished to be associated in anyway with the kinship of a man who he had eventually come to recognise as a racist, hypocritical charlatan. In order that the facts recounted by Kevin be given material validity, he also supplied me with a wad of photographs and letters. The latter are clearly in the recognisable hands of yourself, Sean, and another person who sympathises with your right wing past involvements in the National Front Party (and indeed allusions are made to this in said letters). The former (some colour, some black and white) clearly show Mr Manchester at training sessions and/or social occasions when he is entertaining Kevin. Some are of especial interest, and show Mr Manchester proudly displaying his collection of Nazi memorabilia, which he keeps in a small room upstairs in his house. Then there are the books Kevin gave to myself, with personal inscriptions written by Mr Manchester himself to Kevin, which refer severally to Kevin as a ‘comrade’ and ‘loyal supporter of our cause’. ‘Vampirologist’ comments: “Describing Combat 18 as ‘extreme right wing,’ by the way, barely begins to describe this hate site which is probably more extreme than Hitler in its views.” How apt that he should mention Hitler in context of Mr Manchester, in view of the framed Mein Kampf quote which Kev’s material shows him so proudly displaying in his home. There is no ‘bluff’ to call, Sean, and denials of the above mentioned facts (and others) will only ensure that you ‘dig yourself in’ far deeper. Your former associate (at least as described on BBC Television!) David Farrant.
• TheVampirologist November 13, 2011
  I have waited to hear back from Seán Manchester who obviously wants nothing to do with anything going on here. He did, however, confirm that, although he is aware of the fraudulent complaint made against him by Catherine Fearnley a few of years ago which she has since withdrawn unreservedly as previously stated, he has absolutely no knowledge of a complaint being issued by Patsy Langley and did not hear from anyone in this regard. The police did contact him over Farrant's then girlfriend's complaint which they took seriously until they investigated Ian Gomeche where correspondence between Gomeche and Farrant was discovered on the latter's computer. The police did not ask to see any of Seán Manchester's computers. The did (at a later date) seize Farrant's computers over a complaint issued against him for harassment, but it was what they found on Gomeche's computers that convinced them to drop any enquiries they might have been undertaking into Seán Manchester because, although Gomeche resided in Scotland, he was able to make his IP source appear as if he was in Canada. They also discovered that Gomeche has tried to hack into Seán Manchester's computer. It is important to remember that the neo-Nazi Gomeche was working with Farrant and was the moderator of the Combat 18 forum where the controversy is centred. Describing Combat 18 as "extreme right wing," by the way, barely begins to describe this hate site which is probably more extreme than Hitler in its views (and certainly more crude). Gomeche (with Farrant's help) posted stolen images of Seán Manchester in his clerical attire onto Combat 18's forum along with the most extreme excitements of hatred (designed to put him in danger) imaginable. His private address was also published by Gomeche. It was not too long before the forum was disabled and a police investigation into Gomeche was launched. It should be made clear that Seán Manchester has received no cautions or warnings at any time in his life and invites interested parties to call Farrant's bluff and contact the police. While doing so they might also like to contact London's Muswell Hill Police Station whose officers monitored Farrant for a period of time and in 2007 seized his computers after receiving harassment complaints. Seán Manchester utterly rejects the malicious falsehood made in Kevin Chesham's name by Farrant and, again, invites interested parties to call Farrant's bluff. Where is Kevin Chesham in all this? Where are the alleged "four witnesses"? It did not happen. Nothing was "boasted" by anyone. Which is why all this is so much hot air - the stuff Farrant runs on. The man is a compulsive liar, and that is not just my view; it has been the considered opinion of the judiciary, juries, journalists, the police and many independent people who have come into contact with him for one reason or another. Anyone that really knows Farrant will be aware that he simply lies about everything, whether it is the hoax he perpetrated in February 1970 along with a group of others whom he persuaded to write bogus letters to the press, or his current fraudulent allegations without substance against a man who wants absolutely nothing to do with him. Farrant saw nothing at Highgate Cemetery, had nothing to do with the British Occult Society, and remains nothing more than a pathetic interloper whose entire raison d'etre is predicated on malice against Seán Manchester.
• A Facebook user November 12, 2011
  Gareth, 'This was NOT in the original, of which I have examined several copies in various libraries and private archives. I have no idea how Ellis came to insert this, but I would suggest that people stop 'quoting' it.' That's the thing, it *is* in there. Try the Camden Archive. Highgate & Hampstead Express, 6 Feb. 1970, p. 26. You'll find it. Plus, David has given reasons for saying it, too. Conflicting ones, admittedly, but he's certainly acknowledged writing it many, many times. The 'call out' to other witnesses was from that 'missing' paragraph. Vampy, 'I have not suggested that Hogg is a homosexual' does 'there's only two kinds of people who say suchissuch' ring a bell? I'm not stupid. I know what you were inferring, especially as you simply echoed Manchester's lie. And you certainly know about it, because you were one of the commenter on the thread. 'It is obvious to anyone following this saga that Hogg has tried to ingratiate himself with the entire Farrant clique', or, here's another possibility: some of them befriended me? Shock! Horror! We talk about the case, we have common interests. Is it *really* that surprising a friendship would follow? Clutching at straws again, mate. 'Hogg says he has invited Seán Manchester to become a FB friend. I don't know whether he has or not, but you can bet your bottom dollar it was after he had a collection of Farrant's miserable crew listed as his friends, and Hogg knows that Seán Manchester will not permit a conduit from them to him', to which I say: 'tough titties'. I thought Bishops were supposed to be *accepting*, Vampy? It sounds like he's one mean, vindictive SOB, if that's how you're gonna 'defend' him. Well, at the very least, it shows how nonsensical those 'But, but...you're not friends with any of the Bishop's friends!' really is. Plus, you *know* I have a friend who's a sympathiser: Timelord. I also know you've been in my other friends' ears about me, too. So, nice try ;) Brendan, 'ever refer to me as a stalker and the ip trace I ran on your multiple accounts will be handed over to the police along with other logs cached in my database! I collaborate with no one', why wait? Considering the actions of the FoBSM, I think it's long overdue.
• A Facebook user November 12, 2011
  P.S. - One more thing Sean. In July this year a former friend of yours who no longer wants anything to do with you (in fact the intended best man at your wedding and the former Executor of your Will), Kevin Chesham, was filmed in front of four witnesses, and he confirmed that you had boasted to him privately that you were responsible for putting up our names and this false information on the Combat 18 message board. David Farrant.
• A Facebook user November 12, 2011
  CORRECTION: You are a blatant liar ,'Vampirologist', you were served with two official Police Warnings for harrassment in 2004 / 2005. This harrassment concerned your stalking of innocent people on the internet merely because they were either 1) members of the British Psychic and Occult Society or 2) were friends or associates in some way connected with myself. In the first case, after a police investigation, you were found to have illegally put the names and photographs of myself, Kev Demant, Gareth J. Medway and Catherine Fearnley up on an extreme right wing message board (Combat 18), giving our private details (names, addresses and phone numbers), saying we were all 'right wing informers'. This was a blatant lie and police discovered that your email was responsible for issuing these postings. In the second case a few months later, you did a similar thing to a lady called Patsy Langley merely because she had written a book on the Highgate 'vampire' and your alleged involvement, by sending her loads of harrassing and unsolicited emails to her place of work. You were again discovered to be the direct culprit and also made to sign another Police Warning to the effect that you would desist from further harrassing her. Both these notices were served on you by the Bournemouth Police who visited your premises and confirmed the presence of the offending computer in your front room. I invite anybody who might question the above to contact the Bournemouth Police and send them, or refer to, a copy of this statement. You are an inveterate liar, Sean, and you are fooling nobody but yourself with all your petty denials. David Farrant, President, British Psychic and Occult Society
• A Facebook user November 12, 2011
  "He hasn't been banned from anywhere." What a blatant lie! As for your comments regarding rectums, you play that gay card so well, unfortunately it shows you for what you are, a homophobic piece of nothingness!! You really do have a disgraceful attitude towards other people. What I find so hypocritical is Manchester's willingness to STEAL private images and use them at the same time he makes DMCAs against anyone who dares to publish an image of him! I would give you one piece of advice; ever refer to me as a stalker and the ip trace I ran on your multiple accounts will be handed over to the police along with other logs cached in my database! I collaborate with no one, I never have and I never will! I did not produce a blog with private pics
• TheVampirologist November 12, 2011
  I should make a slight amendment to correct my previous post. John Pope was appointed by his close friend David Farrant (with whom he stood in the dock at the Old Bailey in 1974) as "head of the junior department of the Highgate Vampire Society." Farrant, of course, was head of the HVS itself. Pope, who carries a conviction for sexual assault on a young boy, was somehow found appropriate material to run the "junior department" no less of Farrant's society. Unlike Farrant, who now dismisses his somewhat theatrical black magic past, Pope still sticks to his guns and describes himself on his website thus: "John is a master of the black arts, a third degree witch and Odinist, he is a natural shaman and master of Yoga and other preternatural mysteries and systems." Link: http://www.londonhorrortours.co.uk/dr_johns_page.htm
• TheVampirologist November 12, 2011
  "Blow a hole in yer ass the size of a mouth"?!! What is this preoccupation people in the Farrant camp have with other folk's rectums? They just can't keep away from them! Once again we hear propaganda spoon-fed by Farrant regarding Seán Manchester being supposedly banned from forums etc. He hasn't been banned from anywhere. Farrant also claimed on a podcast with another of his hate campaign collaborators that Seán Manchester is banned from entering Highgate Cemetery. Again, false (as FoHC will confirm). Farrant's cronies are so blind to his lies that it makes responding on this blog pointless because, with two or three exceptions, we have here a collection of anti-Seán Manchester stalkers once again doing Farrant's dirty work. Hogg says: "Dave thinks I'm an associate of Manny's; while you seem to think I'm Farrant's stooge." It is obvious to anyone following this saga that Hogg has tried to ingratiate himself with the entire Farrant clique. This has led to half of his online friends being in some way connected to Farrant, including, of course, Farrant's eldest son. How many are connected to Seán Manchester? Hogg says he has invited Seán Manchester to become a FB friend. I don't know whether he has or not, but you can bet your bottom dollar it was after he had a collection of Farrant's miserable crew listed as his friends, and Hogg knows that Seán Manchester will not permit a conduit from them to him. Kilmartin says: "I'm actually waging my own personal war with someone who has publicly lied and broken the law." Let us remind ourselves that Seán Manchester has never been convicted of anything, nor been fined or cautioned in his entire life. So Kilmartin must be talking about his friend Farrant who was found guilty of indecency in Monken Hadley churchyard; malicious damage in Highgate Cemetery (by inscribing black magic symbols on the floor of a mausoleum); offering indignities to remains of the dead (via black magic rites in Highgate Cemetery where photographs were taken of a naked female accomplice amidst tombs); threatening police witnesses in a separate case where his black magic associate, John Pope, was subsequently found guilty of indecent sexual assault on a young boy. (Pope, on his website “London Horror Tours,” describes himself as a “master of the black arts” and was appointed by Farrant as "head of the Highgate Vampire Society" in 1997); theft of items from Barnet Hospital (where Farrant worked briefly as a porter in late 1970 after being released from Brixton Prison); possession of a handgun and ammunition kept at Farrant's address (which also contained a black magic altar beneath a massive mural of a vampiric face of the Devil that had featured in various newspapers, not least full front page coverage of his black magic threats to people in the Hornsey Journal, 28 September 1973). In 1974, Farrant was sentenced to four years and eight months imprisonment. No need really to say anything more about lawbreaking. Farrant is an ex-convict and his colluding company of clowns are part of a circus of calumny who campaign compulsively against Bishop Seán Manchester about whom they know next to nothing, relying on the word of a man described by judges, magistrates and the media as a compulisve liar.
• TheVampirologist November 12, 2011
  Gareth Medway, as usual, is being extremely economical with the truth. Seán Manchester's private retreat is shown in the top picture on this blog: http://seanmanchesterinvites.blogspot.com/2010/12/christmas.html It is the detached property in the foregound. The property to its right is out of view, but of identical size. The property to its left (which is visible) has eight bedrooms. The bedrooms at Seán Manchester's century-old retreat are quite large as photographs elsewhere on the same blog confirm. Like all of the houses in that road, the property in question is well above "standard size." I should know because I have visited. Medway also knows because he has taken photographs of it clandestinely (in collusion with Farrant), one of which appeared in Farrant's self-published hate pamphlets aimed exclusively at defaming Seán Manchester. Farrant's eldest son was still using the surname "Coster" up until a few weeks ago, but has recently adopted his biological father's surname. I have not suggested that Hogg is a homosexual. I have no interest in his sexuality and would not venture an opinion on it. Medway is totally mistaken in claiming that the words "I have no knowledge in this field" were not included in Farrant's correspondence to the Hampstead & Highgate Express on 6 February 1970. The following link provides a scanned copy of his friend's letter to the editor (before it was modified online by Farrant) as published in the newspaper: http://highgatevampire.blogspot.com/2009/12/one-two-or-three-vampire-sightings.html
• A Facebook user November 11, 2011
  My friend Gareth J. Medway, who is at my flat tonight, has read through the copious replies on here, and would like to make a couple of observations. Well that's fine by me, as Gareth does not have an online computer, so over to you, Gareth . . . Firstly, David, the man you referred to does not live in a 'bungalow', but in a two story standard sized house, I would guess with three bedrooms (not five, unless two of them are cupboards); it is dwarfed by the much larger houses on either side, one of which has quite unusual architecture, which led a lady friend of mine who walked down that road with me to comment that she would like to live there; I told her that the neighbours might be a problem. Anthony Hogg complains that David has been "putting the horse before the cart": I thought that that was the normal procedure. The essay by Bill Ellis in 'Folklore' was generally quite accurate, but contained one quite serious error, which unfortunately is still being quoted: David Farrant wrote about his sightings of a ghost in Highgate Cemetery to the Ham and High, who published his letter on 6 February 1970, under the headline 'Ghostly walks in Highate'; he said that "On three occasions I have seen what appeared to be a ghost-like figure inside the gates . . ." But Ellis, though quoting the letter accurately, added the totally spurious sentence at the end: "I have no knowledge in this field . . ." This was NOT in the original, of which I have examined several copies in various libraries and private archives. I have no idea how Ellis came to insert this, but I would suggest that people stop 'quoting' it. Farrant's eldest son has been described here as 'Jamie Coster'. Although he did use this name, 'Coster' being his stepfather's surname, several years ago he reverted to being Farrant. Vampirologist has suggested that Anthony Hogg is homosexual. He seems to disapprove of this, which is slightly odd coming from a man who remarked in his autobiography that at the age of twelve he was the vicar's favourite choirboy. Timelord quotes David Farrant as saying: "Does the Highgate VAMPIRE still exist . . . yes it does." I do not expect 'Timelord' to take any notice of what I say, but perhaps someone who knows him, and is concerned for his mental welfare, could explain to him what the word 'joke' means. Gareth J. Medway (posted by David Farrant)
• A Facebook user November 11, 2011
  TheVampirologist: Lets get a few things straight before you introduce me in to yet another online blog! "This is based on completely untrue allegations from Brendan Kilmartin who runs a forum where anyone who is remotely sympathetic to the bishop is prohibited from posting. Kilmartin himself is very friendly towards a man who daily wages a vendetta against Bishop Seán Manchester." Firstly, anyone connected with Manchester (I refuse to address him as a bishop) is at liberty to post freely on my forums. The fact you and your several aliases were banned is something I'm sure you would rather remained private. Alas, it seems there is a pattern with Manchester, being banned from numerous online boards and blogs being one of them! Members are banned when I deem their behaviour unsuitable, even when I show tollerance there will always be a few idiots who simply cannot act appropriately - like it or not, you and your aliases are one of them! Secondly, being friendly with someone means nothing unless I'm actually waging my own personal war with someone who has publicly lied and broken the law (his own words, not mine). Feeding people the old "guilty by association" line is not going to wash Manchester. Let's not forget who stole my personal picture and used it on yet another hate blog against David Farrant. You're so blind to what is happening it's scary! I know who you are, so stop your complaining and leave me out of your empty life otherwise you may just find a very large exclusive on the front page of my site that would blow a hole in yer ass the size of your mouth!
• Timelord November 11, 2011
  If you wish to know the answer to that question Harold (Jamie Farrant), I suggest you contact BSM.
• A Facebook user November 11, 2011
  Timelord, 'David, where is your evidence for the Victorian angle?' As of this writing, he has none. But now that Vampy's mentioned 'Like most things rooted in fact which he plagiarises he hasn't the foggiest notion about the Victorian sightings, as the files to which he has never had access are locked away', the onus is on him to provide similar proof.
• A Facebook user November 11, 2011
  Vampy, '...having a few hours earlier on Facebook described Bishop Manchester as "a despot" and "a fuckin' lowlife" obviously cannot be trusted an inch or be regarded as anyone remotely resembling a Christian.' Really? You base your judgment on my spirituality solely on those comments? Come now, Vampy, you know Christians can err (my language was, unfortunate, true, but I wasn't pleased to see the treatment Red was copping). The Bishop, himself, is a classic example. He chides others for copyright violation - yet wantonly engages in plagiarism, himself. He chides others for occultic dabblings, when he used a *necromantic ritual* to summon a freakin' vampire. Those aren't Christian behaviours, either. As to the 'Spartacus' thing, I admit that it's inherently problematic - especially as I've been 'collared' as being Manchester, too, as I've pointed out. The problem is, both you guys have your own way of doing it. Dave thinks I'm an associate of Manny's; while you seem to think I'm Farrant's stooge. How about considering another possibility: I'm a guy with his *own mind*. I can find truth in some things David says; I can find truth in some things Manny says. Doesn't mean I have to wholeheartedly agree with *both* sides. The main problem here is, that the claims between the two are wildly contradictory and they simply can't be both right about *everything*. And that's why I ask questions and write about this thing: what's the truth here? Who's lying? *When* are they lying? Both of you guys have dished out some pretty nasty attacks on my person, but you've both failed to discount *what I've said*. The comments I've made are based on my own experiences and what I've read on this thing. So how about focusing on *that*, instead of character traits? If I'm wrong about something: call me out on it, but give a specific *reason* for doing so. Not vague insinuatuions of 'propaganda' or whatever. That's too vague to even clarify - which, I suspect, is its intention. Offer proof of your own. As you'd know, I'm happy to hear both sides out, but if something doesn't add up, I'll say it.
• A Facebook user November 11, 2011
  I see 'timelord' has chosen to ignore my post about Sean being associated with the catholic church. Does this mean we'll see an end to his claims of episcopalness or will he finally admit he's the 'bishop' of his own religion. Probably the wisest course considering the alternative, eh 'timelord'!
• A Facebook user November 11, 2011
  David, 'I am not obliged to 'prove' anything to you Anthony', actually, you are. When you make claims, then say you answer genuine questions, and come up with that cop-out, you are. 'Why should I have to? The BOS was first founded in 1967 and it grew from there. Mr. Manchester's membership was terminated in 1970, hence the main reason for what you now refer to as the 'feud'.' Because you portray this as a factual occurence, but you have provided no evidence to establish it, but, more importantly, it is a counter-claim. If Manchester says he was involved in the BOS - and you weren't - and he established that connection before you, you are subsequently required to counter it with proof of your own. Not hearsay. 'You have (conveniently?) missed a lot out from the article which Cu sent you.' Not at all. You have (conveniently?) missed a lot out from the article which Cu sent you. 'There was no 'demonic entity' as such,but I did realise that the entity we were dealing with was 'malignantlt supernatuiral', and I went on to explain the differences between white and black magic.' And I quoted from the article, showing how easy it was to describe the thing as 'demonic'. Like I said, semantics. I didn't say it *was* a demon, but pointed out how easy it was to describe the thing as demonic. Case in point: you say you use the term 'vampire' as a convenience - and you did, several times during the article. Doesn't mean you summoned Count Drac, does it? It's how you describe it. Same principle for 'demonic'. I'm not going to post your article on your behalf. For starters, it's several pages long. You can do that (I suggest uploading it to Scribd), but a word of warning: if you do, you'll only prove my point. In terms of misinterpretations and me spreading 'untrue propaganda', I'm still waiting to hear from you on that, Dave. Specific examples, especially as you're also suggesting I'm in cahoots with Manchester. What *exactly* have I said that's incorrect?
• TheVampirologist November 11, 2011
  You will never get a satisfactory answer on this matter from Farrant because he heard it mentioned by the British Occult Society to which he has never owed any connection. Like most things rooted in fact which he plagiarises he hasn't the foggiest notion about the Victorian sightings, as the files to which he has never had access are locked away. Farrant unconvincingly repeats his lie that Seán Manchester was "expelled" by him in 1970. So why was there no mention of this when he was interviewed by newspapers? Why was there no mention when he appeared on two programmes in 1970 where he had been told in advance by the television producers that the President of the British Occult Society would be featured? Indeed, the BOS offices were filmed in the second of these films. Farrant was nowhere to be see, needless to say. Seán Manchester was captioned "President, British Occult Society" on the TV screen without a murmur of disapproval from Farrant who was captioned "David Farrant." The truth is that Farrant did not start attempting to interlope and falsely associate himself with the BOS until somewhat later at which time newspaper editors always included the prefix "self-styled" when referring to Farrant's adoption of Seán Manchester's title and the BOS nomenclature. Just check the records for yourself. Then there is the begging letter from Brixton Prison sent by Farrant to Seán Manchester asking for his Society's help, which confirms beyond all doubt that Farrant was not a member of the British Occult Society. Farrant's prison correspondence is 100% genuine (graphologists are invited to test the handwriting) and can be viewed at this link: http://highgatevampire.blogspot.com/2009/08/prison-correspondence-from-lone-vampire.html
• Timelord November 11, 2011
  David, where is your evidence for the Victorian angle? Where is your evidence that the BPOS existed prior to the date you allege? Genuine questions that will always remain unanswered. Hold on for bile and deflection back ladies and gentlemen.
• TheVampirologist November 11, 2011
  "Just for the record," spouts Farrant "'vampireologist' [sic] does not exist as an independent person." I think you will find that I do exist in my own right. "His range of IP numbers (five) are known to us and they all originate from a bunglow [sic] situated near the edge of the clifftop in Bournmouth [sic]." No they don't, and nobody I know lives in a "bungalow," least of all Seán Manchester who resides in a five-bedroom Edwardian detached dwelling in a residential area - unlike Farrant himself who stews in a pig sty of a bedsitting room in a Muswell Hill Road multi-occupied letting. "These IP's have been checked by other moderators and Website owners and these posts all come from the same source." The other "moderators" and "Website owners," of course, all being friends of Farrant who are part and parcel of his daily hate campaign against Seán Manchester. "In July 2004, police had reason to visit these premises which resulted in this same person being issued with a written Police Warning for harassing various people on the Internet; their only crime being that they knew - or were associated with - myself." False. The person who made a complaint to the police on Farrant's behalf is Catherine Fearnley who was his girlfriend from June 2004 to June 2007. She subsequently made statements to the effect that Farrant had made her issue a complaint as part of his vendetta and that she does not believe for a minute that Seán Manchester was responsible for any of the things she originally accused him of. She lay responsibility at the door of David farrant and his chum Ian Gomeche who at the time was a moderator of one of Combat 18's nastier forums. Gomeche was harassing Seán Manchester and posted stolen images of him together with gross libel on the neo-Nazi forum. Gomeche, a notorious stalker of many people on the internet, was in regular email contact with Farrant during this entire period - something confirmed by Farrant's ex-girlfriend, Gomeche himself and the police who seized the latter's computer where discovery was made of correspondence between Farrant and the neo-Nazi. The complaint against Seán Manchester was demonstrably malicious and the person who issued it on behalf of Farrant subsequently withdrew it and made an apology. This is how deviously David Farrant operates. He likes to get others to do his dirty work - in this case his then girlfriend and, of course, Ian Gomeche - while sitting back to enjoy his machiavelian scheming. His only problem is that he always gets found out.
• TheVampirologist November 11, 2011
  Someone who states on this blog: "Even so, *prove* that they're Manchester. I'm not saying they're not, but prove it. I'd rather take a chance and address them by their usernames, than revel in the same everyone-is-Manchester! innuendo you do" - having a few hours earlier on Facebook described Bishop Manchester as "a despot" and "a fuckin' lowlife" obviously cannot be trusted an inch or be regarded as anyone remotely resembling a Christian. Hogg definitely does accept Farrant's malicious lies on this matter because this claim that Bishop Manchester is somehow "Spartacus," ie anyone daring to post a sympathetic word in his favour, is preposterous enough without Hogg insisting from behind closed doors on Facebook: "I don't need to prove [it's the Bishop]. That bile speaks for itself" - when referring to comments made here by Anonymous and me. What bile? I can find none save that which spews from the poisonous pen of Farrant and son - plus, of course, Anthony Hogg who prefers to do his dirty washing well within the closet. Hogg will have people believe that Bishop Manchester is a tyrant and an oppressor, ie "despot," without a shred of evidence to support such desperate character assassination. But what is Hogg? Capricious? Conniving? Deceitful? Devious? Dishonest? Dubious? Faithless? False? Fickle? Guileful? Irresponsible? Questionable? Shady? Shifty? Slippery? Sneaky? Treacherous? Tricky? Trustless? Two-faced? Undependable? Unreliable? Unsafe? Untrue? Untrusty? Or all the above?
• A Facebook user November 11, 2011
  Timelord November 10, 2011 "Didn't say that did I Mr Farrant Junior. I said OLD Catholic Church, not ROMAN Catholic church. You are trying to compare Anglicism with Methodism, they are different churches, as well you know, but hey just another brick back of abuse from your jailbird daddy, eh?" That's odd because they used to be one and the same before the schism, and indeed are now in talks to work together Surely now you (sorry Sean) will stop claiming to have any part of this in support of your (sorry his) very public views. Anything less would be pure hypoprcrisy I'm sure you'll agree.
• A Facebook user November 10, 2011
  I am not obliged to 'prove' anything to you Anthony. Why should I have to? The BOS was first founded in 1967 and it grew from there. Mr. Manchester's membership was terminated in 1970, hence the main reason for what you now refer to as the 'feud'. You have (conveniently?) missed a lot out from the article which Cu sent you. There was no 'demonic entity' as such,but I did realise that the entity we were dealing with was 'malignantlt supernatuiral', and I went on to explain the differences between white and black magic. Why have you 'overlooked' this importantant piece of text? Was it just a conmvenient 'over-sight' (as usual) or just another example of your extremely sloppy research!? Without the full context of my article, people might be forgiven in thinking you were deliberately trying to create a wrong impression (rather like your mate "Timelord"), so why don't you post the whole article up? You have my permission (if Dylan doesn't object) then people can read it as I wrote it myself - not just according to your selected interpretation. Please go ahead . . . David Farrant, President, BPOS
• A Facebook user November 10, 2011
  'There are more things in life than an obsessive 40-year-old vampire case!', says the author of 'In the shadow of the Highgate vampire' and president of the Highgate Vampire Society. lol Seriously, Dave, you're clutching at straws here.
• A Facebook user November 10, 2011
  'I have always answered genuine questions about the Highgate case Tony.' No, you haven't. And that's been proved by our discussion on the Victorian sources you've failed to produce, in establishing the cemetery's 'extant' reputation for hauntings by a tall, dark figure who walked through walls. Cu and Della asked about it, too, after you refused to answer me...but then you said you'd answer them (and then, you didn't. At least, not on the forum). That's not answering 'genuine questions', that's being selective with *who* you answer and/or slapping on the 'genuine questions' tag over something you can't answer properly. That is a dodgy tactic. Simple as that. And further proof: I asked you to name something *specific* that I've said wrong or relate *which* propaganda I'm supposedly spreading...you couldn't do it. Instead, you just started attacking me again. lol I know it's far easier for you relate vague insinations, thinking it's a 'clever' way of getting back at me (for some reason), but let's see if you can put your money where your mouth is. Name something SPECIFIC. Go on. You can't even use the 'predetermined answers' routine, as Tony - who's made an appearance on here - has dismissed your case as 'tosh', but you still answer questions from him. The difference is, he's also a friend of yours. So, I maintain that your 'genuine questions' tag is a way of dodging questions. You're certainly not concerned about 'repetition', as you recycle the story (and revise it along the way), in various books, TV interviews, radio interviews, etc. The same kinda details pop up, the same kinda questions. So, pull the other one, mate.
• A Facebook user November 10, 2011
  'As for the BPOS, you SHOULD be aware that when I had libel actions against The Daily Express and the News of the World back in circa 1980, Society membership forms had to be produced during the High Court proceedings', yeah, and you *lost* the case against The Daily Express and the News of the World one was about your failures as a lover. So, point? As it stands, the earliest (public) reference to the Society is 27 February 1970...by Manchester. I know you guys had a back and forth about who was its head, but your claim didn't come till sometime *afterwards*, which is kinda suss. Not only that, but you 'changed' the name in '83, anyway. If you've got any proof that the BOS was in operation before 1970, or a court established that you were its rightful head, by all means, share it. 'FOR 'TIMELORD' I did ot summon up a 'demonic entity' at Highgate Cemetery as you are now trying to maintain.' Actually, you did (we'll play along and for the sake of argument, presume you summoned something). And you gave conflicting dates for the summoning, too. And descriptions. And the 'medium' involved. Other folk would know that from reading your later revisions to the story. In terms of 'demonic', you're playing semantics here. Let's take a look at what you actually said in your 1975 'Invoking the vampire' article for New Witchcraft: 'It is therefore quite feasible that the Cemetery phenomenon was an evil entity that had been summoned as the direct result of a Satanic ritual, or that the Satanists had succeeded in awakening the latter day vampire which had laid dormant for so long' (p. 36). 'Accordingly I consulted my associates in our Order and we agreed to conduct a magical ceremony whereby we could make psychic contact with the vampire' (ibid) and 'The motivation for preferring this ritual was to counteract the activities of the Satanic Coven who had violated magical Law by evoking a malevolent, evil force to execute their own desires, the basic object being to establish magical "contact" with the existing phenomenon (or "vampire") and thereby negate the Diabolic Powers brought into existence' (ibid.). Gee, I wonder why anyone would refer to the 'entity' as 'demonic'...
• A Facebook user November 10, 2011
  I have always answered genuine questions about the Highgate case Tony. The problem is, you have never asked any; just demanding that I agree with your own predetermined assertions about the case which have been totally pre-conceived by yourself! All the questions you keep repeating, I have already answered to you in public. So the question is, why do you just repeating the same 40-year old questions? You seem intent on perpetuating this feud angle, then going public and asserting that you have tried to 'resolve it'. You have not 'resolved anything'; you only make matters worse by your same old retterick. Go on to something new, Anthony, for God's sake, and give us all a rest from this nonsense! There are more things in life than an obsessive 40-year-old vampire case! David Farrant, President, BPOS
• A Facebook user November 10, 2011
  David, you say I relay VRS 'propaganda'. Well, name it then. Let's see you put your money where your mouth is. Exactly what have I said here - or elsewhere, for that matter - that is incorrect? I have cited your own website, your video and forum comments. If you consider *that* to be propaganda, then perhaps your connection to Manchester is closer than we thought. In terms of my so-called gullibility by addressing Vampy and Anonymous by their usernames, you'd note I've also called them 'sockpuppets', a term I'm sure you're familiar with. Even so, *prove* that they're Manchester. I'm not saying they're not, but prove it. I'd rather take a chance and address them by their usernames, than revel in the same everyone-is-Manchester! innuendo you do. Timelord's a case in point. On the forum, you repeatedly inferred he was Manchester - and when he challenged you to prove it, to out him, you *refused to do so*. That is a pathetic tactic. Also, one of your mates, CLD, 'outed' *me* as Manchester, too and you were content to go along with that ruse. So, just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean you're *always* right. Focus on *what's being said*, rather than dismissing all and sundry through their associations (possible or otherwise) and enough of that 'genuine' questions claptrap.
• A Facebook user November 10, 2011
  FOR 'TIMELORD' I did ot summon up a 'demonic entity' at Highgate Cemetery as you are now trying to maintain. Your 'information' is derived solely from a published article which I myself wrote about this incident, but which you have taken completely out of context: probably because you have not read my article correctly. In this, I said that I realised that the entity we were atytempting to contact on this occasion (in 1971, I believe) had 'demonic attributes'' that had to be taken into 'psychic consideration' by the medium who was also present. It seems, like Anthony Hogg, who are also incapable of reading what was actually written! Nice try Seanie, anyway! David Farrant, President, BPOS
• A Facebook user November 10, 2011
  Thanks Trish, But please do NOT send deails of Society membership to ANYBODY here without my prior authorisation. Member details have to be kept confidential and cannot be released in public without members prior consent. If anyone here wants to view any of these, they must first make a request to the BPOS, which would then have to be forwarded to myself for approval. For your information, 'Timelord' is not a genuine identity, and he would have to give his real name and legitimate contact details so that I might consider such a request. But that apples to anybody else as well until I can clear any such request. Thank you for all your enthusiasm so far Trish, but all records of Society membership must not be released in public without my prior authority. If you wish to continue your conversation with 'Timelord' in the meantime then, of course, feel free to do so. But please give this matter careful attention as this person is not who he is pretending to be! I will show you more in private anyway, but it can't be here! Thanks again for the dinner and the wine, and talk very soon. David
• A Facebook user November 10, 2011
  Hello Mr. Timelrod and happy to meet you. What is the conflict center between your commitee for Oganisms and BPOS? I am part time research with BPOS files and do access membership papers that Mr. David has refer to of record, and there is valid truth of what he says. Mr. Timelrod the Vampire case it needs serious discussion but I have been seeing only the frustration and toxic speaking here. I am happy if you want scans I can provide to show the truth of Mr. David to you. Have the best day! Trish
• Timelord November 10, 2011
  Hmm, didn't you claim to once summon some dead demonic entity, David? Or was that a Hammer Horror movie I was watching the other day - The Occupational Liar of Highgate, I think that's what it's called.
• A Facebook user November 10, 2011
  Yes, that's right Sean. And you're the one who is looking in that mirror! David Farrant, President, BPOS
• Timelord November 10, 2011
  Yes David, everyone is Bishop Sean Manchester. Everyone who dares speak up and suggest that you are a charlatan who has constantly changed his story for the last forty years. Sigh. Debating with you is like debating with a mirror, you deflect everything back without answering anything. 40 years of hate.
• A Facebook user November 10, 2011
  PS As for inventing silly titles at the end of your name, the Society's title has been officially registered for many years now. Of course, you could always make up some non-sensical words at the end (as you did in your last post) but this would never make such a title legitimate. That would be tantamount to inventing the name of some bogus church in the signature which, I am sure you would agree 'Timelord', would not be a very Christianthing to do! David farrant, President, BPOS
• A Facebook user November 10, 2011
  You're right of course Sean, you CAN put anything after your name to make you sound credible. Like the word 'bishop' for example!
• A Facebook user November 10, 2011
  As anticipated, 'Timelord', you have completely avoided my simple question. I asked you if you believed the literal 'slaying' of these two 'vampires' actually happened. But then, you couldn't answer this could you 'Timelord' without really giving away your true identity. Which just goes to prove my point. As for the BPOS, you SHOULD be aware that when I had libel actions against The Daily Express and the News of the World back in circa 1980, Society membership forms had to be produced during the High Court proceedings. Something else you were not aware of Seanie - sorry, I mean "Timelord", of course! David Farrant, President, BPOS
• Timelord November 10, 2011
  As for "President BPOS" just how many members do you have David? I could put President for The Committee for the Liberation and Integration of Terrifying Organisms and their Rehabilitation Into Society and the end of my name, but it doesn't actually mean anything at all, particularly if you are the only member.
• Timelord November 10, 2011
  David, once again you deflect out and blame another party without actually answering anything yourself. I'll say again, you have been told I am not Bishop Manchester. As for what BSM put in his book, well at the very least he kept to his story and still keeps to his story - he hasn't contradicted himself for a shilling for the past forty years. You have lived off the Vampire motif for all that time, despite protestations to the contrary. You are in your mid 60s David. GROW UP.
• A Facebook user November 10, 2011
  No, what is even funnier 'Timelord' is you trying to pretend you are other than you really are! THAT's what's funny! You use the word 'hoax', "Timelord". Could that be a subconscious reflection of your own guilt? Like the time you claimed to have staked a vampire through its heart which then gave out a terrible roar 'as if from the bowels of hell' [your own words] and then promptly turned to 'slime' in the bottom of its casket. Or the time you claimed to have later 'staked' its disciple 'Lusia' after she had changed into a giant spider! Grow up for God's sake Sean. You will deny this by saying you're not really you, but that was somebody else writing that. OK. Lets play that childish game. How about telling everyone here if you really believe this fiction? Well? David Farrant, President, BPOS
• Timelord November 10, 2011
  Deary me David, anyone who questions you or is critical towards your part in the proceedings is automatically BSM. You have been told on numerous occasions that I am not, yet you continue with this. I should take it with a badge of honour to be honest Dave. As for your video, um, there is no 'send up' to that at all, unless you are now admitting that your part in the proceedings is now a hoax on your part? Keep on contradicting David, because it's really funny, and each time you do it, you become less and less credible, if indeed you ever were!
• A Facebook user November 10, 2011
  Oh back as 'Timelord' now, are we 'Vampireologist'!? You seem to be confusing the difference between films (fiction) and the facts of real life, 'Timelord'. By that same reasoning, you'll be mnaintaining next that Christopher Lee really believed he was a 'vampire' in real life. I somehow don't think so! If you're referring to the 1997 film which I think you are, you should realize that that whole film was a send up of people who were claiming that a REAL vampire existed at Highgate Cemetery. It does not mean that I really believe in them - I don't! David Farrant, President, BPOS
• Timelord November 10, 2011
  Didn't say that did I Mr Farrant Junior. I said OLD Catholic Church, not ROMAN Catholic church. You are trying to compare Anglicism with Methodism, they are different churches, as well you know, but hey just another brick back of abuse from your jailbird daddy, eh?
• A Facebook user November 10, 2011
  For 'Timelord'. So you're telling me that Sean Manchester is part of the catholic church. Could you perhaps explain to me then how you (sorry he) reconciles his condemning of homosexuality with his often and loud claims of belonging to an organisation that is well known for it's covering up of literally thousands of cases of sexual abuse against young boys? http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_sex_abuse_cases
• Timelord November 10, 2011
  Funny David, but anyone asking you direct questions you respond with this "not genuine" bull. You wouldn't get into these situations if you simply answered pertinent questions.
• Timelord November 10, 2011
  David you were seen, in a video from 1997 (?), saying "Does the Highgate VAMPIRE still exist..... yes it does." You said these words, you were filmed saying these words, yet you still DENY SAYING THOSE WORDS. Who are you trying to kid, yourself or those people who you have managed to get onto the anti BSM bandwagon? I'm saying all this yet I am not religious at all, but to put blame onto one side of the debate like you do and whitewash what you did is utterly, utterly bizarre.
• A Facebook user November 10, 2011
  Just for the record, 'vampireologist' does not exist as an independent person. His range of IP numbers (five) are known to us and they all originate from a bunglow situated near the edge of the clifftop in Bournmouth. These IP's have been checked by other moderators and Website owners and these posts all come from the same source i.e. a computer situated in the living room of this bungalow. The only thing that changes as such are the various aliases all these posts are made under: in this particular case 'vampireologist'. In July 2004, police had reason to visit these premises which resulted in this same person being issued with a written Police Warning for harassing various people on the Internet; their only crime being that they knew - or were associated with - myself. This person is suffering with some paranod obsession about myself, and some other members of my Society. People like Anthony Hogg may have been taken in by this ruse; but again Mr. Hogg is certainly not the most intelligent of people! (Sorry Tony, but you have just been 'duped'!). If anybody has any genuine questions to ask me about the Highgate 'vampire' case, I am quite prepared to answer these here. What I will not do, however, is debate with 'members' who are not genuine and are bent on using a public Forum to conduct a personal harassment vendetta. Mr Hogg is little better in this respect for he is merely repeating repetitious propaganda which was 'spoonfed' to him when he was originally a member of this same person's Forum. So if any bonafide members have any questions for me here, just ask away! David Farrant, President, British Psychic and Occult Society
• Timelord November 10, 2011
  The Old Catholic church is NOT a made up religion or church, that's a ridiculous thing to say Mr Farrant Junior.
• Timelord November 10, 2011
  David Farrant has consistently contradicted his story ever since his pathetic visage appeared on the scene in the late 1960s. He has used the "vampire" motif to sell, sell, sell himself and his badly photocopied pamphlets of hate or badly produced videos for decades. This is the real truth of the thing - that he stumbled across something that happened and created a mythos that embedded himself in the middle and to hell with the rest. Notice I didn't mention BSM? I don't need to, because his story has maintained a consistency to this day, no matter if you believe or disbelieve.
• A Facebook user November 10, 2011
  'He should have kept quiet about it if he didn't want it brought up.' Firstly, that's a pretty creepy thing to say, especially if you obtained that info from his Facebook page. Second, it shouldn't be raised at all. It's irrelevant to these discussions. In terms of 'but he tried to gain the high moral ground by saying he was a Christian', I didn't think that was his intent, other than stating he had Christian beliefs. That doesn't preclude him from, uh, 'erring' (within Christian context). After all, Vampy's noticably silent on Manchester's practices, which have involved occultism, necromancy, plagiarism, divorce, child abandonment, etc. Instead, it seems he's content to project outwards to his critics. In terms of my friends, I've already explained the context of that. As mentioned, I even once tried to add Manchester, himself, so that makes a mockery of the 'criticism' of whose company I keep and their connection to Farrant. That's simply a matter of circumstance. And, like I said, I honestly wish the sides would resolve their differences. As you're an avid reader of SNW, you'd no doubt be aware of my own peace intitatives. In terms of Manchester's supporters being 'more than capable of giving as good as they get', the problem is, his most vocal supporters - the FoBSM - doesn't just respond to critics (like me), but stalks them and posts their personal info...in 'defence' of a man of the cloth, no less. Couple that with Manchester's admittance that he uses aliases and, well...you can see why such conflations would occur. If you 'happen to know for a fact that The Vampirologist is not the Bishop', that suggests a personal relationship with him. How else would you know, considering he hasn't disclosed anything about his own involvement in this thing? Lastly, the 'hate campagin', 'vendetta', etc. is not just being carried out by David's supporters (although, you'll have to clarify what this 'campaign' actually involves. Specifics, preferably). As you've noted, the Bishop's supporters go against the Bishop's own request that the 'haters' be ignored. By the Roman Catholic-homosexual logic you've been using, can they truly be counted as 'supporters' if they can't adhere to their head honcho's 'credo'? In the meantime...FOR F**K'S SAKE, CAN WE TALK ABOUT THE CASE? That'd be good.
• Anonymous November 10, 2011
  I agree with the statement that "actions speak louder than words" which is probably why the Bishop has attempted on various occasions to reconcile matters with David Farrant who each time has not wanted to know. Tony Hogg's actions speak very loudly in my opinion. Nobody has accused him of directly assisting David Farrant. What The Vampirologist and I have said is that those Tony Hogg does befriend and assist participate in David Farrant's vendetta against the Bishop who is an outspoken opponent of many things, including wars begun by his own country, and has appeared time after time in the media over the last four decades to express what he believes is a Christian duty to resist war at all costs. Whether or not non-Christians accept the validity of his Holy Orders is immaterial and meaningless when you consider that Christians of every maninstream denomination do accept him as a validly consecrated Bishop. I believe he was pronounced as being a legally valid Bishop by a senior churchman in the Anglican Communion when his complaint was upheld against a radio programme where an aspersion on his validity has been unintentionally cast. It is obvious to anyone viewing the web that a vendetta is being executed against the Bishop by, among others, some of those posting on this blog. I also accept that a few supporters of the Bishop are more than capable of giving as good as they get which goes against the Bishop's request that this feuding be dropped and the principal players be ignored. I think it is important that a Bishop declares himself to be utterly heterosexual which I believe Bishop Manchester has done on various occasions. Why is Redmond McWilliams' own sexuality relevant? Because on Brendan Kilmartin's Supernatural World forum he declares his religion to be Roman Catholic. He also declared himself a Roman Catholic on Facebook but has recently changed his relgion to agnostic on the social network site. Had he not made such an issue out of being Roman Catholic in some of his posts on the Highgate related threads on Brendan Kilmartin's forum it would not be quite so relevant, I agree, but he tried to gain the high moral ground by saying he was a Christian. Though in the last few days he appears to have had a change of mind about his religious faith, albeit not his sexuality. It was Redmond McWilliams who chose to announce to the world on Facebook that he is in an active homosexual relationship. He should have kept quiet about it if he didn't want it brought up. My saying that I know the identities of some of those currently active in an online vendetta against the Bishop was in response to three people on this blog misidentifying The Vampirologist to try and score cheap points. I happen to know for a fact that The Vampirologist is not the Bishop. I also stated in my previous post that I would not dream of disclosing someone's identity even if they are engaged in what can only described as a hate campaign and, believe me, they are engaged in a hate campaign on behalf of the person who has been waging one since long before most people on here were even born.
• A Facebook user November 10, 2011
  Dylan, a suggestion - would you consider adding an obligatory sign in for comments, so anonymous sockpuppets can be held accountable for their comments?
• A Facebook user November 10, 2011
  David, 'I have been telling you for years now (much of it on other Forums) I am simply NOT interested in answering your self-conceived allegations about the so-called Highgate "vampire".' Thanks for proving you're unable to refute what I say, but instead revert to vague attacks. Anonymous: no, I don't mean him. Fair call on the martyred Bishop's biz and TheVampirologist not being explicit about his Christian beliefs, however, his frequent allusions to Christianity is somewhat odd in context, then. What does Redmond's sexuality have to do with anything, Anon? You don't say, 'Bishop Manchester, who is openly straight', for instance, so how is it relevant? And yes, I was being sarcastic about the link between me and a 'side' because of the friends I keep. So, like Vampy...what's your point? What are you inferring here? You know that hinting that I'm 'working' for Dave is gonna fall flat on its face, considering he resorts to the same kinda ill-thought attacks on me as Vampy/Manchester's side does. Oh, and it's not just Dave and his friends who stoke the feud - Manchester and his mates do, too. Your inference about 'true identities' was somewhat sinister, too, I might add. I could've sworn it was the same stalky tone used by the FoBSM.
• A Facebook user November 10, 2011
  For everyone, in answer to the whole Bishop/ christian thing we should all rember that Sean is a self proclaimed 'bishop' of his own made up religion. Thats why he calls it autocephalous. It's just him and no body else. As to being a christian, if he is, its in name only. Actions speak louder than words and Seans actions are about as far from 'love thy neighbour' christianity as its possible to get. Oh and Sean, I'm not sure why you keep refering to peoples sexual oriention but 1 it's got nothing to do with you and 2, this is the year 2011, theres nothing wrong with being gay. Maybe you should keep your outdated intolerance for when you're parading about in your nazi uniform! If you don't like what I'm saying please feel free to set the team of lawyers you threaten people with onto me....... oh I almost forgot, you made them up as well!
• Anonymous November 10, 2011
  Some observations of my own: "If by 'assisted', you mean providing him with a link citing several of Sean Manchester's aliases, then, sure, I assisted him." says Tony Hogg, but on what evidence? Does Tony Hogg mean the allegations of Brendan Kilmartin who is a known sympathiser and friend of David Farrant? Tony Hogg also says: "Presenting oneself as an exemplary Christian (and attacking other people's religious beliefs), then spewing bile about the enemies of a Bishop (who shouldn't even have enemies!) is not going to help things." I can't find The Vampirologist anywhere presenting himself as an "exemplary Christian" and as for "Bishops shouldn't even have enemies" how is that so many have been martyred (including in modern times) if they didn't have enemies? If you ask me, any effective Bishop will have natural enemies as well as loyal friends. It goes with the territory. As for aligning with one side, Tony Hogg and Redmond McWilliams are both administrators of a closed group on Facebook called "The Highgate Cemetery Vampire Appreciation Society" where practically all those who have been allowed to join are ardent supporters of David Farrant. Redmond McWilliams, who is openly homosexual by the way, has visted David Farrant at his home and David Farrant has also travelled to where Redmond McWilliams lives in Surrey to visit him. Tony Hogg sarcastically saying "I am friends with people David knows, then I *must* be on his side" has something of a hollow ring to it. These are not just people that David Farrant knows. They are people who meet with him and regularly support him on the web to stoke the feud. I happen to know who The Vampirologist is and, sorry folks, but he ain't the Bishop. I also have knowledge of some of David Farrant's supporters and know their true identities. Not that I would dream of revealing them .....
• A Facebook user November 10, 2011
  Ha ha ha, "lost to the devil". That's the funniest thing I've heard for ages Sean. First you say I don't believe in Catholicism then you expect me to be worried about the consequences. Why would I be bothered about something I don't even subscribe to. You really need to think things through a bit more. And isn't lying supposed to be a sin by the way (according to your alleged beliefs) You're not a bishop but you tell people you are. You even walk round in a purple dress and a ridiculous hat to prove the point. Mind you, I guess hypocrisy was always one of your strong points, why stop now!
• A Facebook user November 9, 2011
  FOR ANTHONY The only 'record' that needs to be changed here, Anthony, is your own and the same old one from 'vampiteologist' which you keep replaying. I have been telling you for years now (much of it on other Forums) I am simply NOT interested in answering your self-conceived allegations about the so-called Highgate 'vampire'. I have told Mr. Manchester (aka 'Vampireologist') the same on just as many occasions. Look, I just don't agree with either of you, but you both seem to have some unhealthy obsession to keep this 40-year-old + discussion going. Yet who really cares about it anymore? Only you and Mr. Manchester it would appear. I do not profess to speak for everyone, but I would imagine most people must be getting totally bored with it. So, I agree, Yes, time to change the record and perhaps discuss something more current! DavidFarrant, President, BPOS
• A Facebook user November 9, 2011
  David, now *you're* starting to sound like Vampy! lol I've addressed the case multiple times on here and have even encouraged Vampirologist to do the same. Unfortunately, you're both stuck in 'attack mode'. Change the record, mate! lol
• A Facebook user November 9, 2011
  Trish, Vampy made a big deal of the way I used the term because he thinks only African-Americans and homosexuals say it. He was also alluding to something the Bishop said about me: because I was commenting on his practice of plagiarism and asking him to own up to it, he let a bunch of random people say a bunch of nasty things about me. Rather than delete their comments on sight, as he does mine...he replied to them and went along with it. For the record, I am not homosexual. Like I said to Vampy, I keep my life private. Plus, how is the women I've been with at all relevant to these discussions and, more importantly...how exactly does he want me to prove it? lol Incidentally, I was using the 'Bitch, please!' in a jokey way, but also to have a laugh at Vampy's ludicrous claim that the feud has continued because of *me*. That's what we call 'passing the buck'. As to the Facebook friends thing, Vampy and his various other disguises like to point that out - but repeatedly fail to mention - that I haven't *excluded* Manchester or any of his supporters from my page or my circle. Indeed, I actually regard one, 'timelord', as a friend of mine. But overall, the friends I have on my page are irrelevant to the discussions. Unfortunately, Vampy is trying to twist these discussions into a policital 'event': if I am friends with people David knows, then I *must* be on his side, too. That's ludicrous, especially as my criticism goes to both sides of the debate. As I've said, they've both made dodgy claims. In terms of being 'lost to the devil', as far as I'm concerned, everyone has a chance to be saved. But presenting oneself as an exemplary Christian (and attacking other people's religious beliefs), then spewing bile about the enemies of a Bishop (who shouldn't even have enemies!) is not going to help things. It'll only make it worse. At the very least, Vampy should follow the Bishop's advice and *ignore* people like David. Otherwise, he's just gonna keep getting worked up. Honestly, I wish the two sides would resolve their differences, but they're too stubborn to reach a compromise...so far. Let's hope they can. :)
• A Facebook user November 9, 2011
  Is there no end to Mr Hogg's and 'Vampireologist's cut and pasted comments? They say absolutely nothing new or, as far as I can see that is of any possible interest to the Highgate 'vampire' case! They are even less relevant, when we consider that 'vampireologist' himself is no less than Mr.Manchester posting under one of his old established aliases. This may fool a handful of gullible people (like Mr. Hogg), but believe me it does not fool the majority! You are speaking to Seanie in person, Tony. And you refer to yourself as a serious researcher! God save us from all this amateurism! David Farrant, President, BPOS.
• A Facebook user November 9, 2011
  Trish love, I reckon you got homosexual mixed up with ladyboy there in your last post.
• A Facebook user November 9, 2011
  Just call me David, Trish. 'Mr. David' is too formal! We enjoyed your dinner, by the way. Thanks David
• A Facebook user November 9, 2011
  Reagrd Mr. Anthony. Why is a word bitch controversy? The female is not in question in any evidence. In my country there are men who change sexual and wear female clothing and this is A1 acceptable by the people. If Mr. Anthony choice for this lifestyle, who can criticise? Unfair to call him Bitch and shame on these conversations for rudeness Also why look at Facebook peoples who not friend? Facebook is for make friend. If you want know someone better ask to be friends not try look and say bad thing then say other people ruin discussion when you do worse. Look at real friend instead for happy life. In my country we say do not cry over the chilli when slaughter the buffalo so yes I agree there is need for serious talk on Highgate Vampire not nasty talk where one man with many names just like satan himself say Mr Jamie and Mr David lost to the devil but I do not know why. Mr Farrant for good example talk about God much, most day and in his house is Christian bible and many book about Jesus Christ but you have never met Mr David so you not know this. So as they say judge not unless you are judge also mych worse. I hope you learn to be happy because you sound so sad and then I feel sad for you. Have the best day all, Trish
• A Facebook user November 9, 2011
  If by 'assisted', you mean providing him with a link citing several of Sean Manchester's aliases, then, sure, I assisted him. I don't think there's much amusement to be found in the 'anti-Christian' label. You feel free to bandy that term about, but don't display many Christian attributes, yourself. Character assassination, for starters. You're also contravening the Bishop's advice, in which he suggests folk like Farrant should be ignored. As to the 'scores' of support, I can only imagine that many of these men of the cloth aren't aware of Manchester's dodgy activities. In terms of devout laity, they're welcome to join my page. I haven't excluded any. Hell, I even tried adding the Bish at one point, but he refused. Not my fault. If you feel Jamie - or David - or anyone else, are 'lost souls', then spewing bile on them ain't gonna win 'em for Christ. Try a different tack: be friendly. Warm. Open. Encourage them to reconcile their differences. Even I tried that. Unfortunately, Manchester and Dave are too wrapped in the feud to give it a go. Why don't you encourage them? In the meantime, instead of heaping on invective, why not tell us about your involvement in the case?
• Anonymous November 9, 2011
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y0MLpMxUojQ
• TheVampirologist November 9, 2011
  How they love to deceive, obfuscate and play games, turning everything on its head in the process. Anthony Hogg has assisted Jamie Farrant by providing him with anti-Seán Manchester links (posted on Jamie Farrant's blog which is solely devoted to attacking Seán Manchester). You have to laugh when you consider that these are the same people who describe the Right Reverend Seán Manchester (and, like me, anyone else who supports him) as "anti-Christian." It must be curious for them to learn just how many Christian supporters Seán Manchester has, not least of all Facebook, including scores of deacons, priests, bishops, archbishops, cardinals and religious in the Anglican, Orthodox and Catholic Churches. How many devout Christians whether laity or clergy are registered friends of Jamie Farrant or Anthony Hogg? Absolutely none! And not without good reason. Neither are genuinely Christian and, whilst Hogg is not openly anti-Christian, his behaviour is unChristian and he inevitably sides with others who are virulently anti-Christian against a Christian bishop. Jamie Farrant is openly anti-Christian - especially anti-Catholic - and must be regarded, like his father, as a soul lost to the Devil. Such are the strange bedfellows of those who comprise a malicious vendettat that has been spoiling forums, blogs and boards for a considerable number of years. When people happen upon this blog entry about the bizarre goings-on at Highgate Cemetery more than four decades ago they must be heartily disappointed to discover familiar stalkers posting anti-Seán Manchester rhetoric with view to promoting their own personal obsession with a man whom they have never met - instead of pursuing the bare bones of the topic itself. The Highgate Vampire is a fascinating case which many people would like to hear discussed intelligently by those informed about it. This never happens once the regular stalkers arrive to scupper the topic and hijack it for their own purpose. I shall not be wasting my time any further for that very reason. People like Hogg and his friends invariably spoil it for everyone else. Their only interest is attacking a particular individual to make it personal. The observer need not dwell too long on the unpleasantness they bring to the situation. Just take a look at their images. That tells a story in itself. Take a look at Jamie Farrant's anti-Christian rant on his Facebook information page where he demeans Catholic priests generally and adopts blasphemous language offensive to Christians of all denominations who will find his comments repuslive. If Jamie Farrant's wall is inspected it will confirm this man in his mid-forties to be truly sick and depraved. He revels in the most vile and obscene matter, indulging in every sort of mindless asininity that a schoolboy would find puerile, tedious and ultimately boring. Hogg is not anywhere near as disgusting, but he is nonetheless willing to indulge in foul language when he feels the urge. These occasions have unfortunately increased with gathering tedium for those he inflicts himself on.
• A Facebook user November 9, 2011
  I see some things don't change then. Yet again here's Sean Manchester pretending to be someone else and indulging in character assassination and general unchristian nastiness. 'vampirologist!!' don't make me laugh. Everyone knows its you Sean so why bother.I see you're just as much of a hypocrite as ever as well, on the one hand tell everyone Anthony's gay while whinging about libel on the other. You really need a reality check, do you honestly not realise what an idiot you make yourself look!
• A Facebook user November 8, 2011
  Regarding the homosexual inferences, I should've mentioned, that's something Manny tried against me while I was exposing him as not only a plagiarist, but someone who steals their material from the BNP. See: http://dawwih.blogspot.com/2010/02/bishop-allows-derogatory-hateful.html It's stunts like that, which prove how dodgy a Bish he really is. Oh, and the 'Bitch, please!' was used in a pop culture way, if you're really *that* curious. But no, I'm not black.
• A Facebook user November 8, 2011
  'There are only two kinds of people who use that term, and we know that Hogg is not black. That leaves only the other kind, and he has always denied being one of them despite never showing any interest in the opposite sex.' Aaah, the homosexual inferences raise their head again! As I said before, I'm not homosexual. How exactly you'd like me to prove this (as if it was in anyway relevant to discussions) is beyond me. I generally don't talk about my private life online - which has been a smart move, considering Manny's lackeys, like yourself, have tried to hunt down and publish personal info on me (like 'my' home address). I like your use of the term 'parasite', because you obviously ripped it off from my blog entry about you. It's amusing that you're compelled to ape my observations, as well as my usernames and blog titles. You really take the cake, mate. Once again, you've also tried to politicise the discussion ('Hogg chooses to ingratiate himself with people who hold one particular viewpoint; one that is both anti-Christian and anti-Seán Manchester'). You and Manchester, ironically, are both anti-Christian. As to 'anti-Manchester', well, the guy's dodgy-as. I've exposed that on my blog. But I don't reserve my criticisms for one side, but for both primary sides. They're as dodgy as each other, after all. And, as I've shown, they even use similar tactics to launch ad hominem attacks on their critics. You guys are pretty much in the same boat, as far as I'm concerned. Anyhoo, I presume you're *not* going to reveal your involvement in the case, while taking those weak digs at me? Yes or no?
• TheVampirologist November 8, 2011
  He speaks of "childish attacks" by me that are not the slightest bit infantile. His constant bickering and personal assaults on the character of Seán Manchester down the years is what is truly childish. He had no "involvement" in the case that now so obsesses him, which is why he repeatedly asks questions like the one below, having earlier on this thread been told by me that his provocations and queries will be ignored. By stating a few salient facts about Hogg in response to his mischief-making untruths is not "having anything to with him." It is slapping down an irritating geek who gets on just about everyone's nerves wherever he posts his harassment. Whatever issues David Farrant and Seán Manchester might have had in the past and still have today, it is absolutely none of Anthony Hogg's business. I would not be mentioning any of this myself, but for the fact that Hogg is dredging it all up again, as he always does whenever he rears his head - sticking his nose into matters where it is not wanted. Seán Manchester refuses to have anything to do with Hogg whom he regards as a stalker. David Farrant only occasionly rises to Hogg's jibes and provocations, but otherwise wants nothing to do with him. Were it not for Hogg, there would be no need to rebutt and clarify anything on here. Matters are always made worse and muddied by him. He should consider getting a life of his own, but he won't. He is a confirmed stalker who will continue to annoy people on the internet with his unwanted and unwelcome two penneth no matter how apparent his unpopularity in doing so becomes. Unfortunately, Anthony Hogg is a pest and a parasite - just like the vampire that so preoccupies him.
• TheVampirologist November 8, 2011
  "Bitch, please!" says Anthony Hogg. There are only two kinds of people who use that term, and we know that Hogg is not black. That leaves only the other kind, and he has always denied being one of them despite never showing any interest in the opposite sex. Hogg's "findings" rely on hate sites and those in Farrant's pocket. The word of trouble-makers and stirrers with an openly anti-Seán Manchester agenda are gospel, as far as Hogg is concerned. Not one source relied upon by Hogg - apart from infringed images, eg Farrant pretending to be a ghost at night in Highgate Cemetery in early 1970 and the picture of his meeting with Seán Manchester on the front page of the Ham & High in March 1970 - is a VRS source. Hogg instead puts his faith in the venomous garbage issued by the likes of Don Ecker. And where does Ecker and his ilk get it from? Farrant, of course. While it is a fact that Ecker's friend Farrant does not trust Hogg any further than he could throw him and consequently won't co-operate with him, Farrant's sympathisers - even his eldest son - definitely do co-operate with Hogg and many of them are registered Facebook friends on one or both of Hogg's accounts. By contrast, despite Seán Manchester having 5000 Facebook friends, many of them with an interest and/or involvement in the paranormal, none whatsoever are FB friends with Hogg. The fact that Hogg chooses those in the Farrant camp, small though it is by comparison, speaks volumes. The Don Eckers of this world did not ask to become Hogg's friend. He asked to be their friend in full knowledge that they support Farrant's anti-Seán Manchester vendetta hook, line and sinker. Hogg chooses to ingratiate himself with people who hold one particular viewpoint; one that is both anti-Christian and anti-Seán Manchester.
• A Facebook user November 8, 2011
  'Absolutely nobody with a connection to the Highgate Vampire case, no matter how tenuous their connection might be, want anything to do with him.' The attacks on me by both camps, says otherwise. lol Strangely, they're unable to overturn my findings... As to putting the blame on *me* for stoking a feud, all I can say is...HAHAHA! Bitch, please! You guys have been sniping at each other long before I got involved - and continued afterward, too. Your respective posts prove that. Anyhoo, so after your childish attacks, I presume you're *not* going to reveal your involvement in the case? Is that correct?
• TheVampirologist November 8, 2011
  Hogg thinks this matter is about him. It is not. He's just another bandwagoneer in a far off land on the other side of the world attempting to exploit and bandwagoneer something that happened before he was born which does not concern him. People obviously have an interest in the case and express opinions on it. They might also read books and watch DVDs about it. There is nothing wrong with that, and certainly nothing wrong in holding views on the material itself. Hogg is something else. He likes to make it personal, and he's obsessed with two people whom he sees as different sides of the same coin when they are not even the same currency. His compulsive behaviour down the years has achieved nothing beyond pouring fuel onto the flames of a "feud" which he, more than most, has helped immeasuably to stoke. Without people such as Hogg the cinders of this "feud" might well have grown cold. Yet he ensures an ill wind blows from his direction to fan the embers into new and destructive flames. Absolutely nobody with a connection to the Highgate Vampire case, no matter how tenuous their connection might be, want anything to do with him. And who can really blame them? Regarding the case itself, Seán Manchester informed the public on 27 February 1970 that demonic disturbances and unearthly happenings in the vicinity of Highgate Cemetery were vampiric. Shortly afterwards he appeared on television on 13 March 1970 to repeat his theory. The suspected tomb was located and an exorcism performed in August 1970. This proved ineffective as the hauntings and deaths continued until he and his team tracked the supernatural evil to a derelict neo-gothic mansion on the borders of Highgate and Hornsey where the entity known as the Highgate Vampire was finally laid to rest. End of story. Believe it if you wish. Dismiss it if you so choose. Just don't let it become an obsession which takes over your entire life, as Anthony Hogg seems to have done.
• A Facebook user November 7, 2011
  Also, I hope you understand, Vampy, that sockpuppets like yourself, and the bile you spew, actually *draw* people to Dave. The best recruitment officers Dave has for his 'publicity machine' or whatever, comes from the VRS and FoBSM.
• A Facebook user November 7, 2011
  So I ask you about your involvement in the case...and you conjure up a 'rap sheet' on me? Jeez. lol Bit touchy there, Vampy.As to 'sending a number of emails' to FoBSM, I think you'd call them 'replies', as they were contacting me, first. As to 'rival forum', I think you mean forum that wouldn't involve the wholesale, one-sided censorship found on The Cross and the Stake, et. al. (Farrant's forum was also censorious, with even the name of my forum being deleted) I invited both sides to participate, because that's what you do when hearing out a case. As much as both sides try to diminish the other's involvement., it's a ludicrous gesture considering how much of their writing and time they devote to sniping at each other. Hell, you've gone and done it again in your bizarre 'replies'. So, let's try and get back on topic. Are you going to release the interviews with Blood, and exactly what is your involvement in the case?
• TheVampirologist November 7, 2011
  Hogg provided on his rival forum links to sites in the USA where gross libel and malicious fabrication against Seán Manchester was rampant. Some of the webmasters were transparently anti-Christian and their hatred against a traditionalist such as Seán Manchester knew no bounds. Given the type of person who is publishing the libel it is what might be expected, but what is a Baptist doing providing links to it? The offending sites violate UK libel laws, the Protection from Harassment Act, the Data Protection Act, fraud and copyright laws. The claims made by their webmasters are utterly false and misleading. What, then, is the point in providing links to such illicit and hateful websites? Only Hogg knows. Needless to say, Seán Manchester, through an intermediary, made it known by email to Hogg that he did not want his name to appear on the latter's rival forum which has embroiled the fraudulent claims of Farrant and his coterie at considerable length. It was also requested that messages or message extracts cease to be copied and pasted by Hogg from VRS boards and that such messages or parts thereof that have already been duplicated be removed. As with all requests made to him, Hogg ignored this simple appeal. Hogg knew that everyone was sick and tired of hearing about Farrant, but he just cannot get enough of this man for reasons which escape the more rational among us. That would be fine if only he would leave Seán Manchester's name out of the equation. He will not because Seán Manchester is central to the case of the Highgate Vampire and if you remove him there is nothing much left to discuss. Remove Farrant and it really makes no difference because he was merely at the centre of his own self-serving publicity stunts while attempting to jump on a perceived bandwagon. Others like Farrant who sought to capitalise out of the mayhem moved on. Their names are largely forgotten as it did not become an obsession for the remainder of their lives. Some of them were students, some were occult dabblers, some were pop singers. They saw the moment and tried to exploit it. But it was only a moment. Farrant did not move on. It consumed him. It still consumes him. He became a man possessed. In November 2006, Hogg sent a number of emails to Friends of Bishop Seán Manchester complaining that his identity imparted in earlier correspondence to them had been divulged (never mind the fact that Hogg fills his forum with people's identities without their consent). He was nevertheless offered an opportunity to have the situation reversed with all reference to him deleted. For some inexplicable reason he declined. Perhaps he was by that time beginning to enjoy his fifteen minutes of fame? The rest, as they say, is history.
• TheVampirologist November 7, 2011
  For the record, Anthony Hogg is liberal about most things except, like David Farrant, about the existence of vampires. He belongs to the Baptist denomination and resides in Australia where he has an obvious obsession with vampires, fiction and non-fiction. He joined a VRS forum on 18 December 2002, calling himself "The Inquisitive One," and in the intevening period made numerous contributions. His messages latterly concentrated on the matter of the Highgate Vampire and a certain person at the periphery of happenings in Highgate who was sentenced to almost five years imprisonment for crimes committed in the cemetery and for threatening people with black magic. On 22 September 2006, Hogg decided to set up a rival forum as "a discussion group for matters pertaining to the Vampire Research Society and David Farrant's Highgate Vampire Society." With its declared intention of discussing the counterfeit "Highgate Vampire Society" alongside the Vampire Research Society, the rival forum's creator adopted the nomenclature "The Overseer" (not to be confused with someone else of that appellation who was and still remains a member of the VRS) and proceeded to copy and paste from the message boards belonging to each camp. An email message was sent to Hogg explaining that there is no parity between the two opposing societies when discussing the merits of the Highgate Vampire case. One is clearly a hate campaign prosecuted under the guise of a "society" supposedly founded in 1997, while the other society, founded by Seán Manchester on 2 February 1970, has an established history with many notable members and honorary associates. Hogg claims that Farrant was involved in the Highgate Vampire case and uses this as an excuse to provide further publicity for him, but anyone who has taken the trouble to investigate would soon realise that, notwithstanding Farrant's many self-contradictions, the recorded history reveals that, apart from five months in 1970 when a spate of pseudo-vampire hunting was amateurishly attempted for the the print and broadcast media, Farrant was nowhere near any of the major incidents that took place. How could he have been when he was either out of the country, drinking copious amounts of alcohol in local bars, incarcerated on remand in prison, or serving a lengthy prison sentence?
• A Facebook user November 7, 2011
  Incidentally, Dylan, the Ham & High report 'TheVampirologist' is referring to was '"I WAS THE VAMPIRE"', Hampstead & Highgate Express, 20 March 1970, p. 1. Blood is quoted in the article: 'One of the watchers [of the mass vampire hunt on 13 March 1970] was Mr. Alan Blood, 25, a history teacher from Billericay. "I have taken an interest in the black arts since boyhood, but I'm by no means an expert on vampires," he said. "Before investigating something like this I would get in touch with somebody more in the know. Should such a thing exist, it could be very dangerous indeed. There are sufficient grounds to probe just a little further."' Blood's popular association with the case pretty much comes down to his surname. The majority of that article, however, concerns the 'confession' of Barry Edwards, 24, who claimed the vampire sightings were based on his appearance - as he was supposedly making an amateur vampire movie in the cemetery, and starring as the vamp in question.
• A Facebook user November 7, 2011
  'Words attributed to Blood by that newspaper were later refuted by him when he came to give a full interview to the Hampstead & Highgate Express.' Like I said: 'the only real "interviews" you'll find re: Alan Blood, Simon Wiles and John White, is whatever they've said in the press reports.' So, I'll clarify that: *publicly available* interviews. My age is irrelevant to the case, from an historical perspective - after all the majority of historical overviews were written by people 'not born then'. But it's nice to see that despite the enmity between yourself and Farrant, that you use similar ad hominem attacks - showing just how similar you guys actually are. In terms of your recorded interviews with Blood, I suggest the VRS make them available on YouTube, rather than relying on your word. You haven't even disclosed what *your* involvement with the case is, apart from being a 'friend' of Manchester's. So, what is it?
• TheVampirologist November 7, 2011
  Anthony Hogg had not yet been born when Alan Blood saw Seán Manchester on the Today programme (transmitted 13 March 1970) and that same night travelled from Essex to London's highest point where Highgate Cemetery is situated, So how could he possibly know whom Blood spoke to, what was real and what was not real? The VRS had direct contact with all of them. It should be pointed out that Whiles and White were not present on the night of 13 March 1970. They turned up at a later date. On the night in question, Blood spoke to Farrant in the Prince of Wales pub. He had recognised Farrant from his brief appearance on the Today programme while having a drink and deciding what to do after arriving to discover utter pandemonium in Highgate Village. In the event, Blood opted not to enter the cemetery. He did allow a newspaper to take his photograph, however, because they apparently liked his Eastern European-style hat which they felt suited the mood. Words attributed to Blood by that newspaper were later refuted by him when he came to give a full interview to the Hampstead & Highgate Express. He told the VRS that he would not be returning to Highgate Cemetery to pursue his interest because he felt it harboured something so dangerous in the supernatural sense that he did not want to risk it. Farrant told the VRS that he did not leave the Prince of Wales pub that evening. In a recorded interview made seven years later this was contradicted by him. He told Seán Manchester in 1977 that he witnessed the crowds but did not enter the graveyard. He also confirmed that it had been his intention to impale the rumoured vampire with a stake. The VRS were satisfied that Wiles and White were just bandwagoneering thrill-seekers when they entered Highgate Cemetery at a later date. They confirmed that they would not be returning to the place under any circumstances. Whether this was because of its fearful reputation, or the fact that, like Farrant, they fell foul of the law was not made clear. But in their case it was probably the latter. Whiles, White and Farrant were not taken seriously. Alan Blood was taken seriously, but, by his own admission, he was completely out of his depth and was never heard of again.
• A Facebook user November 6, 2011
  Forgot to mention, Dylan, the only real 'interviews' you'll find re: Alan Blood, Simon Wiles and John White, is whatever they've said in the press reports.
• TheVampirologist November 6, 2011
  Bill Ellis’ “scholarly book” contains a long extract which he reproduced from the News of the World, 23 September 1973. In the article Martine de Sacy offers a graphic description of a supposed graveyard orgy and cat sacrifice with Farrant, immediately followed by this from Ellis: “Farrant, who successfully sued the News of the World for libel in 1980, explained that the truth was considerably more mundane.” We are given the clear impression that Farrant sued the newspaper over this article. He did not. We then proceed to read about the alleged abduction of a pop singer’s cat as though this was the same incident. It was not. The pop singer’s cat was at first believed to be the cat sacrificed in Highgate Wood, but Farrant insisted the cat was a “stray” he sacrificed and not the celebrity’s cat. But this occurred in Highgate Wood, not in Highgate Cemetery - “Cat’s throat slit during witchcraft ritual in woods: Roger Simpson interviews ‘High Priest’ David Farrant.” The cemetery cat sacrifice incident was something else, somewhere else - “White magic rites in Highgate Cemetery” in the Hornsey Journal, 15 October 1971; also “Ritual sex act and cat sacrifice: Farrant’s claims in High Court” in the Hornsey Journal, 16 November 1979. It gets even worse because the article identified by Ellis is not the one Farrant sued the News of the World over. Curiously, no mention is made of the article in question in Ellis' article or book. For the record, the article Farrant sued over was published on 30 June 1974 (not 23 September 1973 as alleged by Ellis) under the headline “Casanova Witch A Failure As Lover.” The article was less about witchcraft than allegations of Farrant selling nude photographs of Martine de Sacy in his local pub and her suggesting that his constant attention-seeking was to compensate for his failed libido. Under libel law the onus is on the publisher to prove what has been printed and de Sacy could not be found. She had, in fact, disappeared to France. Farrant won the libel case for this reason and was awarded derisory damages of just £50 with costs against him as a consequence. Ellis avoids any reference to another libel case (against the Daily Express) which Farrant lost and where costs of £20,000 were awarded against him. Yet this is a much more revealing and interesting case where Farrant’s occult claims are examined by experts. Ellis tries to reduce the impact of Farrant’s diabolical dabblings from late 1970 onward by quoting Seán Manchester: “Even Manchester says that his rival [sic] only ‘claimed responsibility for blood sacrifices.’ It seems clear that the affair was a media legend drawn from local rumour and Wheatleyesque models.” What Seán Manchester actually says in his book is: “Farrant claimed responsibility for blood sacrifices, demon raisings and voodoo doll threats.” Farrant did not deny at the time that he carried out these acts. He boasted about them in court and to innumerable journalists. He has been recorded stating as much in interviews. In one interview Farrant accepts that he would be perceived by most people as a Satanist. If Seán Manchester used the words “claimed responsibility” it would only be to show that Farrant did not disclaim responsibility. Ellis tries to make it look as though Seán Manchester is doubtful whether Farrant did these things. “By December [Farrant] had agreed to help John Pope, a Barnet labourer who had fallen afoul of the law and been roughly handled during questioning. Farrant agreed to send out two more dolls to the detectives in charge.” Ellis does not identify the charge against Pope. It was ritual abuse. The very thing Ellis is seeking to debunk in his article and book. So his readers do not learn that Pope was found guilty of indecent sexual assault via the black arts on a young boy. By 1997, of course, John Pope had been appointed head of the "junior department" of the "Highgate Vampire Society" by David Farrant.
• TheVampirologist November 6, 2011
  Bill Ellis speaks of David Farrant’s “supporters” when he had no support. He was a lone publicity-seeker who duped gullible individuals into posing for photographs that invariably ended up in the Sunday tabloids or magazines such as New Witchcraft. This much can be deduced from the press coverage at the time. Ellis is biased towards Farrant’s whitewash without any critical regard for the facts. Consequently, when Ellis refers to Farrant’s collaboration with “an Evening News reporter in October 1970” it bears no similarity to the actual report, much less does it mention that this ludicrous outing was headlined as a “midnight date with Highgate’s Vampire.” Barrie Simmons was the journalist in question and his five column feature, complete with a half-page of photographs, was nothing more than a publicity-seeking amateur vampire hunting enterprise. “Clutched under his arm, in a Sainsbury’s carrier bag,” wrote Simmons, “[Farrant] held the tools of his trade. There was the cross made out of two bits of wood tied together with a shoelace and a stake to plunge through the heart of the beast.” No mention of this is made by Ellis, needless to say. For him Farrant’s revisionism takes precedence. Thus we read that “they surveyed the damage done: graves opened, skulls stolen, vaults defaced with strange scrawls.” What proved important to Simmons was Farrant’s theatrical stalking of the vampire. Not so in Ellis’ version. There are no stakes, no cross made out of two bits of wood and a shoelace. Indeed, no vampire hunting! In his previous paragraph dealing with the August arrest and court appearance. Ellis instead reproduces Farrant’s latter-day falsehood that he never went vampire hunting with a cross and a stake. This had all “been fabricated by the police” we are required to believe, and he then reproduces Farrant’s disingenuous claim that he was “using the ‘stake’ with string attached to cast a magic circle for the ritual.” Despite the BBC, 15 October 1970, television transmission clearly showing Farrant in Highgate Cemetery with a sharpened stake in his hand, wearing a large cross around his neck, and stalking the Highgate Vampire; despite having seen photographs of Farrant wielding a wooden stake and crucifix, Ellis avoids any mention of Barrie Simmons’ midnight stalking of the vampire with Farrant. Instead readers of Ellis' article and book are given a misleading impression in which Farrant and the Evening News reporter are merely “surveying” damage in Highgate Cemetery. Ellis describes the “evidence that black witches had broken into a mausoleum” as being the result of Farrant’s “investigating.” Yet this same evidence was used at the Old Bailey to convict Farrant of tomb vandalism. This Ellis overlooks, and instead quotes Farrant’s unsubstantiated claim: “I know who was responsible for the desecration.” If Farrant knows who is responsible for the tomb vandalism for which he was found guilty, why on earth has he not identified them? The answer is obvious, but readers of Ellis’ book will not find this question raised. Only Farrant’s counterfeit version is told, not the court reports that led to guilty verdicts. Ellis is selective. He hears only what he wants to hear; only what fits his agenda.
• TheVampirologist November 6, 2011
  Dylan, you definitely want to avoid anything Bill Ellis writes about the case. His article and the chapter in his book regurgitating that article are full of misleading citations, erroneous statements and unsubstantiated claims. Ellis could have consulted the man who actually investigated the case. He went instead to the person arrested, charged and jailed for crimes at Highgate Cemetery. On page 222 of his book, for example, Ellis claims that the early weeks in 1970 “were dominated by an escalating rivalry between Farrant and Manchester.” Yet Seán Manchester barely knew David Farrant at the time. On the same page the following error is found: “The programme also aired a series of ghost stories from a group of young neighbourhood children, one of whom asserted, ‘I actually saw its face and it looked like it had been dead for a long time’.” This is factually incorrect. The Today programme, 13 March 1970, reveals it to be David Farrant, not any of the children, who uttered the words “I actually saw its face and it looked like it had been dead for a long time.” Ellis claims an awful lot. If he were writing in a sensationalist tabloid newspaper it would be regrettable, but when publishing what he terms a “scholarly book” it is untenable. He states what he does without any balancing comment whatsoever. Ellis presumes that “many of the vampire-hunters in Highgate took the event as a lark.” In fact, the mass vampire hunt on the night of 13 March 1970, involving well over a hundred people, manifested precisely because so many people had heard about the reports and taken them extremely seriously indeed. Ellis presumes that Farrant’s version of events is somehow reliable (though he later retracted this in correspondence with Seán Manchester). Thus virtually everything we learn about the Highgate goings-on and David Farrant is from Farrant himself.
• A Facebook user November 5, 2011
  Dylan, you definitely want the Bill Ellis article I recommended to you. There's no Highgate 'scrapbook', per se, but his article contains the most citations for articles relating to this case. Oh, and I've got a pretty good bibliography, meself, if you're interested.
• TheVampirologist November 4, 2011
  These are the known and recorded facts about the then 25-year-old schoolteacher Alan Blood who, on 13 March 1970 travelled from Billericay to Highgate in London, having seen a report on television earlier that evening, to satisfy his curiosity. He was not a vampirologist, nor did he ever claim to be. He was one of hundreds who had turned up to see what was happening. The night of 13 March 1970 witnessed scenes of utter pandemonium as people gathered in large numbers along the steep lane running alongside London’s Highgate Cemetery. At 6.00 pm a television programme had confirmed that a vampire contagion was evident in the graveyard, and that a vampire hunt was imminent. The crowds multiplied in hopeful anticipation of locating the resting-place of the undead entity. Police were present to control those arriving, but it was an almost impossible task. By 10.00 pm an assortment of independent amateur vampire hunters had joined the onlookers. Principal among the freelance brigade was a schoolteacher, fortuitously named Alan Blood, whom Matthew Bunson, as recorded in his The Vampire Encyclopedia (1993), deemed to be an important player in the unravelling case. Bunson, an American who had no contact with Blood, or indeed anyone else contemporaneous to the events at Highgate in the 1970s, relied on yet another American, Jeanne Keyes Youngson of the New York Count Dracula Fan Club aka Vampire Empire who, in turn, depended on second -hand reports amounting to personal speculation from people who were not present and played no part in the investigation. Youngson’s influence on Bunson initiated the error in his and thereby subsequent accounts. The primary source, however, is the London Evening News, 14 March 1970, front page report “Mr Blood Hunts Cemetery Vampire.” The brief quotes attributed to Blood in this sensationalist report are notably rebutted by Blood himself in a longer interview given to the Hampstead & Highgate Express, 20 March 1970. This latter interview, reproduced in Seán Manchester’s account about the case, has been totally ignored by commentators such as Bunson who seem to have scant regard for the facts in public archives.
• TheVampirologist November 4, 2011
  What is totally mad is any reluctance to address the case rather than the peripheral minutiae which has no bearing on the case and is of itself transparent. The Vampire Research Society archive holds all the material about which you ask. The VRS also inherited all the British Occult Society archive when the BOS was formally dissolved in 1988. Many of senior members belonged to both the BOS and the VRS. The latter grew out of the BOS, having begun its life as a specialist unit within that much older organisation. Simon Wiles, John White and Alan Blood were all interviewed and those interviews are archived with the VRS. Blood felt compelled to arrive on the scene after seeing Seán Manchester on television on the evening of 13 March 1970 because he had a strong interest in the subject matter, having claimed to have studied the occult since boyhood. He did not, however, enter Highgate Cemetery on the night in question, keeping well away from the graveyard despite having travelled from Essex. Blood was clearly frightened of the supernatural presence at the cemetery and told the press that he was not sufficiently experienced to face it. Wiles and White were bandwagoneering off the back of the vampire panics already extant and could not be taken too seriously. Now, Dylan, how about answering questions I put to you, eg who are the "couple of kids doing a bit of showboating before the press" to which you refer in your post of October 25th?
• Dylan November 3, 2011
  Haha, this is total madness. This is an interesting historical case of a sort of mass hysteria, it is not the supposed paranormal stuff that I find interesting but the "spate of amateur vampire hunters inflicting themselves on Highgate Cemetery with home-made stakes, crosses, garlic, holy water," that interests me. It is made more interesting since it happened in London in the 70s and grew from a sort of pop culture set of ideas and myths (hammer horror films, the occult obsession of the 70s). But man, the ratio of noise to signal here is insane! Nonetheless, I will throw out another set of questions here: 1. Is there a place that has collected all the press clippings and TV news clips related to this case during the time it was happening. Regardless of whether they accurately represent events they are the historical record of how it was being played in the media. 2. Simon Wiles, John White, Alan Blood. Are there any known news interviews with them, or has anyone ever contacted them to ask about why they felt compelled to go vampire hunting in a London cemetery?
• TheVampirologist November 3, 2011
  To read about the aftermath and fallout of the Highgate Vampire case I would thoroughly recommend "The Vampire Hunter's Handbook: A Concise Vampirological Guide" by Seán Manchester (Published by Gothic Press, 1997). "This book is not about fictional vampires of the Bram Stoker’s Dracula genre, but real life blood sucking monsters. It should also be pointed out that there is a long tradition of people who hunt down and kill vampires. This book is not for the faint-hearted, or those people who live alone in rambling houses located on deserted moors." — Shaun Marin (Encounters magazine). "Seán Manchester is, unsurprisingly, very well read in both classical and more recent sources on vampires and vampirism, and cites them with great authority while taking the reader through a brief tour of vampire lore and mythology. This is a book I’d recommend to anybody with an interest in the author or vampires. The parts which deal with vampires are obviously based on years of substantial research and personal experience." — Joe McNally (Fortean Times magazine). The vampire has been defined down the ages as an accursed body which cannot rest in the kindly earth, but nightly leaves its grave to prey on sleeping men and women through whom they are believed to maintain a semblance of life by sucking thence the warm blood of such victims while they sleep. Sir James Frazer in the second volume of his work "The Fear of the Dead in Primitive Religions" (1934) is in no doubt that vampires are “malicious ghosts who issue from their graves to suck the blood of the living, and stringent measures are deemed necessary to hinder or arrest this horrible proceeding.” Link: http://vampirologist.blogspot.com/2011/10/vampire-hunters-handbook.html
• TheVampirologist November 3, 2011
  The current edition is updated and enlarged. Hogg has not read it. The 1985 edition was an illegal download provided to Hogg by a close collaborator of David Farrant in the continuing vendetta against Seán Manchester, a collaborator by the name of Craig Adams. Hogg protests his so-called "neutrality" at every twist and turn. Nobody really believes him. It's just that nobody really trusts him either, which explains why Farrant is unwilling to let him get close despite Hogg's frequent attempts to ingratiate himself in that quarter. Hogg has now started a closed FB group about the Highgate case (which took place before Anthony Hogg was born). His fellow administrator is Redmond McWilliams (aka Cú Chulainn) and the only members so far, bar just one, are supporters of David Farrant, including Farrant's eldest son, Jamie Coster, and his eldest son's girlfriend, Joanne Nesbit-Bell. These last two currently sport a Facebook profile image showing Farrant at the north gate of Highgate Cemetery a decade or so ago on which it declares them each to be "members" of "Farrant's Evil Cabal." There is no surprise to see Brendan Kilmartin joining up to give both Hogg and Farrant his support. Also, a curious character calling himself "Vlad Nett." Watch out for these trouble-makers and bandwagoneers.
• A Facebook user November 2, 2011
  It is also a heavily revised version of the '85 edition, featuring scene changes, dialogue changes, etc. But cheers for showing Dylan your spammy ways, too.
• TheVampirologist November 1, 2011
  The Highgate Vampire: The Infernal World of the Undead Unearthed at London's Highgate Cemetery and Environs (hardback edition published by Gothic Press) by Seán Manchester is the definitive account of the UK’s best documented contemporary vampire case written by the man who led the only investigation into the spectral hauntings, nightly visitations, demonic disturbances and blood-lettings at Highgate Cemetery and environs. Spectres rising from tombs, ghostly manifestations in moonlit lanes, nocturnal attacks on people and animals, corpses drained of blood — almost everyone has heard tales of the Highgate Vampire. Only this book offers the full and unexpurgated account written by the man who was at the epicentre of the official investigation into these mysterious and terrifying happenings. Illustrated with case file photographs from the author's own archive plus line drawings inspired by the recorded history, this revised and handsomely updated edition in hardback has already become a collectors' item. Copies are signed by the author. This enlarged edition stands as the last word on the case by the man who investigated it from start to finish. Link (for ordering The Highgate Vampire book by Seán Manchester): http://www.gothicpress.freeserve.co.uk/Bookshop.htm
• A Facebook user November 1, 2011
  '"On the morning of 27 February 1970 I awoke and found myself famous'...ripped off from Lord Byron. And jeez, Vampy. Not only are you bombarding the comments section, but you're spamming it, too! A simple link or two will do, honestly. Unless you think copy-and-pasting giant slabs of text will somehow 'convert' Dylan into believing your claptrap.
• TheVampirologist November 1, 2011
  The mass vampire hunt at Highgate Cemetery on 13 March 1970, following reports in local and national newspapers, plus a television interview with various witnesses earlier that evening on British television, led to a spate of amateur vampire hunters inflicting themselves on Highgate Cemetery with home-made stakes, crosses, garlic, holy water, but very little knowledge about how to deal with the suspected undead if they encountered it. Seán Manchester had made an appeal on the Today programme at 6.00pm to request the public not to get involved, nor put into jeopardy the investigation already in progress. Not everyone heeded his words. Over the following months a wide variety of independent vampire hunters descended on the graveyard — only to be frightened off by its eerie atmosphere and what they believed might have been the vampire. Some were quickly arrested by police patrolling the area. The public were advised that a full-scale investigation was taking place. Individual efforts by those merely seeking thrills, however, served only to endanger all concerned and frustrate the official hunt. Simon Wiles and John White armed themselves with a crucifix and a sharpened stake, and set off to see if they could locate the vampire’s tomb. Like others who followed in their wake, they were arrested by police who found their rucksack and its contents: an eight inch long wooden stake, sharpened to a point. White later explained at Clerkenwell Court: “Legend has it that if one meets a vampire, one drives a stake through its heart.” He was wearing a crucifix round his neck and Wiles had one in his pocket. They were eventually discharged. Thus began a trend. A 25-year-old history teacher from Billericay, Alan Blood, also descended on Highgate after seeing the Today report, but he, at least, had the good sense not to enter the infamous graveyard. Though described by the Evening News, 14 March 1970, as a “vampire expert,” Blood, in a later interview given to the Hampstead and Highgate Express, 20 March 1970, admitted that he was no such thing. “I have taken an interest in the black arts since boyhood, but I’m by no means an expert on vampires,” he told them. Following a drink in the local pub, Blood joined a crowd of onlookers outside the cemetery’s north gate, but he did not enter. Seán Manchester (on the Today programme, 13 March 1970) warned one particular amateur vampire hunter, who had appeared on the same programme as one of several witnesses, to leave things he did not understand alone. Apparently he had received “a horrible fright” a few weeks earlier when he allegedly caught sight of the vampire by the north gate of Highgate Cemetery and immediately wrote to his local newspaper about the experience, concluding with these words: “I have no knowledge in this field and I would be interested to hear if any other readers have seen anything of this nature.” (Letters to the Editor, Hampstead & Highgate Express, 6 February 1970). In the following month he revealed to the media that he had seen something at the north gate that was “evil” and that it “looked like it had been dead for a long time” (as told by him to Sandra Harris on the Today programme). Seán Manchester gave a warning on television that this man’s declared intention of staking the vampire alone went “against my explicit wish for his own safety.” Police searching the cemetery arrested the amateur vampire hunter five months later. He was found to be in possession of a wooden stake and a crucifix. Charged with being in an enclosed area for an unlawful purpose, he was later released because, in the strict sense of the wording, Highgate Cemetery is not an enclosed area. More information about the Highgate Vampire case can be found at http://vampirologist.blogspot.com and http://highgatevampire.blogspot.com
• TheVampirologist November 1, 2011
  "On the morning of 27 February 1970 I awoke and found myself famous due to a banner headline across the newspapers — 'Does A Wampyr Walk In Highgate?' — quickly followed by appearances on television and in a host of periodicals." — Seán Manchester, (The Highgate Vampire, page 15) Seán Manchester had informed the public on 27 February 1970 that demonic disturbances and manifestations in the vicinity of Highgate Cemetery were vampiric. Shortly afterwards he appeared on television on 13 March 1970 to repeat his theory. The suspected tomb was located and an exorcism performed in August 1970. This proved ineffective as the hauntings and animal deaths continued. Indeed, they multiplied. All manner of people were by now jumping on the bandwagon; including film-makers, rock musicians and sundry publicity-seekers. Most were frightened off. Some who interloped became fascinated by the black arts with disastrous consequences. In the meantime, Seán Manchester and his colleagues pursued the principal source of the contagion at Highgate until it was properly exorcised in the ancient and approved manner. It was a nightmare journey which took them into a nether region inhabited by terrifying corporeal manifestations. “Ever since I became aware that Highgate Cemetery was the reputed haunt of a vampire, the investigations and activities of Seán Manchester commanded my attention. I became convinced that, more than anyone else, he knew the full story of the Highgate Vampire.” — Peter Underwood, The Ghost Club Society, London, England“ I am very impressed by the body of scholarship you have created. Seán Manchester is undoubtedly the father of modern vampirological research.” — John Godl, paranormal researcher and writer, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia “Seán Manchester is the most celebrated vampirologist of the twentieth century.” — Shaun Marin, reviewer and sub-editor, Encounters magazine, England “A most interesting and useful addition to the literature of the subject.” — Reverend Basil Youdell, Literary Editor, Orthodox News, Christ the Saviour, Woolwich, England “The Highgate Vampire will certainly be read in a hundred years time, two hundred years time, three hundred years time — in short, for as long as mankind is interested in the supernatural. It has the most genuine power to grip. Once you have started to read it, it is virtually impossible to put it down.” — Lyndall Mack (aka Jennie Gray), Udolpho (magazine of the Gothic Society), Chislehurst, Kent, England “Seán Manchester, the most authentic vampire hunter in the world today, penetrated the very heart of the mystery whose necrogenic setting has such impressionistic power that within the shades of dark ebon the most disbelieving sceptic will witness something spectral in the ghostly whiteness of moonbeams shining on marble tombs.” — Devendra P Varma, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Canada “Seán Manchester is, unsurprisingly, very well read in both classical and more recent sources on vampires and vampirism, and cites them with great authority.” — Joe McNally, contributing editor, Fortean Times magazine, England “His lectures at universities and organisations led to my inviting him to address members of the Ghost Club Society which he duly did. We met at that time at the Swedenborg Hall in Bloomsbury and the President of the Vampire Research Society arrived, suitably attired, and gave a memorable and in many ways remarkable lecture. Certainly we had had nothing like it before and have never had anything like it since; not a few members at the crowded meeting revised their opinion on vampires and vampirism after that evening.” — Peter Underwood, President, The Ghost Club Society, London, England
• A Facebook user October 31, 2011
  'No need to bombard the comments section...' Yes, that's it, Vampy. Keep copying what I say. ;) If 'Most people can see what is going on and nobody is even slightly interested in reading this sort of [yadda, yadda, yadda]', well, you certainly keep coming back for more. How are my Facebook friends relevant to these discussions? It's pretty obvious I'm neutral and critical of both Manchester and Farrant. For obvious reasons. Playing that 'align me with...' game is stale and the same kinda thing Farrant does. You forget to mention that I tried adding the Bish, but he declined my request. So your 'point' is null and void. It's funny to see how you guys have politicised discussions to turn it into an 'us vs. them' thing. It's not: both narratives are dodgy. It's like a choice between the lesser of two snakeoil salesmen: why chose either? If I 'lie and twists most things he claims about others to serve his own infantile purpose', then you're yet to actually dispute anything I've said. I can understand you'd be a little pissed off at being exposed as a plagiarist and liar, but continuously trying to flip it back to me only makes you look foolish. You engage in the same vague insinuations and attacks against me that Dave does. Despite your differences, it actually shows how similar both sides are...which probably isn't surprising due to their previous friendship. If you 'want nothing to do with' me, then why exactly are you here? Dave's not responding. Dylan's got other things to do. Pretty much all you've said is easily refuted. If you don't even want to discuss the case, then all you're doing is having a go for the sake of having a go. Much like Dave, you don't actually 'ignore' me. You're just too gutless to engage in direct conversation, because of how easily your lies are exposed. As to plagiarism and stolen images, that's a big laugh coming from you. I've exposed your plagiaristic ways many times on my blog and shown how you've ripped off my ideas and former username. Very disingenuous. Again, if the Bishop has 'friends' like you, he doesn't need enemies. If I'm indeed a plagiarist - as you are - then what have I plagiarised, hmm? As to the 'not being born' thing, that's the same pathetic thing Dave says. You don't have to be born at the time of a supposed historical occurrence. I wasn't born during the Battle of Hastings, but I know it happened! I doubt you'd be using the 'you weren't born then!' tactic against those who actually *believe* in the case. ;) Hell of a double standard. Maybe you could tell us about your *actual* involvement in the case...if you actually had any. For example, were you there when the vampire was staked? Did you witness it?
• TheVampirologist October 31, 2011
  Should anyone other than the unfortunate Hogg character have a genuine question related to the topic of this thread, I shall be happy to oblige, but I am not going to be held to account by a mean-spirited individual living on the other side of the world who was not born when the goings-on at Highgate Cemetery were in full sway, yet pontificates about the case as if he owned it. He does not. Alternatively, contact me — "The Vampirologist" — at my blog (link: http://vampireresearchsociety.blogspot.com) and we'll take it from there.
• TheVampirologist October 31, 2011
  No need to bombard the comments section with all too familiar anti-Bishop Seán Manchester and anyone who supports him rhetoric. Most people can see what is going on and nobody is even slightly interested in reading this sort of whinging from someone who relies on antipathetic elements on the internet for much of his misinformation when not quoting directly from sensationalist reports whose journalists manufactured them or relied on unreliable sources. You only have to take a look at Hogg's Facebook friends on both of the accounts he has registered in his name. More than half of them are openly anti-Bishop Seán Manchester, many of them are friends — even family — of the bishop's longest-standing adversary, and only one believes in the existence of vampires! In a nutshell, Hogg lies and twists most things he claims about others to serve his own infantile purpose. Yet — and this is something he just cannot grasp — nobody is interested in him or his negative attitudinising and personal innuendo/attacks on people about whom he knows very little and who, in turn, want nothing to do with him. I include myself in that category, which is why I ignore any questions/provocations he raises here or indeed anywhere else. Hogg's stratagem is to cause offence, steal and plagiarise whatever he can lay his hands — then accuse his perceived enemies of doing the very same thing. He has stolen images from my blogs, including my Does A Wampyr Walk In Highgate? blog. I have full permission to use those images from the lawful copyright holders. Hogg does not. Yet he will accuse others of plagiarism while thinking nothing of helping himself to anything that takes his fancy. He'll yell "fair use" when it's him helping himself to an image off one of my or someone else's sites, but just let anyone else try to do the same thing to him and he'll scream blue murder. The man's a hypocrite! http://vampireresearchsociety.blogspot.com
• A Facebook user October 31, 2011
  No need to bombard the comments section, Sean/Vampirologist/Demonologist/Gothic/Overseer. I'm sure Dylan knows how to access weblinks. As usual, you've got the story mixed up, regarding myself - and not only that, you're even trying to steal my backstory, too! Again, I did *not* start calling myself 'The Vampirologist'. That's the name of my blog. Which you stole. My username, as on here, is my real name. I *did* use 'Amateur Vampirologist' as a username, but that was probably two or so years ago. I decided to stop using usernames in association with my blogs, seeing as you'd gone and publicly revealed what my real name was via your forum (which ripped off the title of mine, too). I knew it was an intimidation tactic, but I decided not to give into it. You say, 'My blog was originally called "Diary of a Vampirologist" which was then amended to "Journal of a Vampirologist." When it became apparent that it was not going to be kept as a journal, I changed my blog title to just "The Vampirologist"', but don't reveal that 'Diary of a vampirologist' was actually a rip-off of my 'Diary of an amateur vampirologist'. The current name of your blog, as with much of your material, was stolen from me, hence why you're so vague on 'when it became apparent', i.e. when *I* used it as a title for my blog. At least be honest about it. As to taking your Highgate vampire blog from a newspaper headline...you ripped that origin story off me, too. You were certainly aware of my blog (and forum of the same name) before you started using that title. You even criticised my username - The Overseer - before going ahead to use it, yourself! You can keep lying about it, 'Vampirologist', but all anyone has to do is compare the dates of postings to verify what I'm saying. If the Bishop has 'friends' like you, who needs enemies, eh? Oh, and by not answering my query on the hoax tape, I'm presuming you *haven't* heard it, which is funny considering how 'close' to Sean you are. Perhaps Dave was right in saying it was a lie...
• TheVampirologist October 31, 2011
  Bishop Seán Manchester continues: "… '[Bill Ellis'] only other resource was an array of press cuttings, many of them flawed and some followed by retractions and amendments that he failed to take into account. Again, the source of much of the contentious reporting in the popular press at the time was Farrant himself. To this person Ellis gives ‘more emphasis than the others as his actions were demonstrably more central to events.' [3] Having neither met nor consulted me prior to his article’s publication, Ellis conceded in correspondence on 22 February 1996: 'Since my piece appeared in Folklore I have received several packets of material correcting my account.' Amazingly, he did not enlist my help at this point. One of many misleading statements in the Folklore article (subsequently reproduced by Jacqueline Simpson in a book of her own) is that Farrant and I were once 'rival members' of the British Occult Society. This false allegation was expurgated by Ellis from Raising the Devil. Likewise, Simpson was obliged to remove it when she came to publish the paperback edition of The Lore of the Land. ... [Jacqueline Simpson] published exceptionally misleading and grossly inaccurate statements in The Lore of the Land, having placed reliance on her American colleague Bill Ellis whose flawed material in Raising the Devil is even more defamatory and damaging. Some of the press cuttings referred to in his book are wrongly attributed and what he has to say is incredibly biased. Ellis wrote the following response when I brought to his attention irrefutable evidence — in the form of copies of original reports — of his many errors: 'We agree that the contemporary press handling was often inaccurate, and that most subsequent discussions were even more distorted. ... Mr Farrant, since he brought the matter into the papers and was repeatedly arrested for his activities in and around Highgate, clearly was central to events in this sense. Credible, I don't say: I give his explanations for what they're worth and expect that most readers would also recognize that a judge and jury found them unconvincing.' [4] Jacqueline Simpson’s terse response to my concern over her damaging errors being repeated in a pending second edition of The Lore of the Land appeared on the internet: 'Wording changed to "young people" and "young man". Name of organisation dropped, Farrant referred to simply as a "member" of 'a group of young people interested in the paranormal.' Words "which the paper called" inserted. No reference now to who did the challenging. Instead, neutral phrasing in allusion to press reports: "rumours spread that a magical duel ..." The other points are rejected, and no changes will be made there.' This is how some 'scholars' apparently operate. The paperback edition contained an incorrect date for a crucial newspaper article about the mysterious death of foxes even though we had cleared that up well in advance. All reference to my episcopal standing, albeit not entirely accurate in the first edition, was completely expurgated. Factual accuracy suffers when a version like the one Ellis put into circulation is then adopted by other scholars who, despite evidence thrust at them, stick to their agenda. Jacqueline Simpson is entirely responsible for the Wikipedia entry about the Highgate Vampire case. What she has written online reflects the catalogue of error already identified above. Those with an interest in the case often innocently provide a link to her Wikipedia article without realising just how misleading and factually inaccurate it really is." Numbered reference sources to this and the previous post: [1] Raising the Devil by Bill Ellis (University Press of Kentucky, 2000, pxii). [2] Raising the Devil by Bill Ellis (University Press of Kentucky, 2000, p282). [3] The Vampire Hunter’s Handbook (Gothic Press, 1997, p68). [4] Correspondence, Bill Ellis, 22 February 1996. See link: http://www.holygrail-church.fsnet.co.uk/EllisCorrespondence1996.htm
• TheVampirologist October 31, 2011
  Bishop Seán Manchester says this of Bill Ellis : "[He] describes himself as 'a member of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America' and, moreover, someone 'who has taken leadership positions and on occasion taught adult Sunday school and led services.' [1] Notwithstanding this claim, when I contacted the ELCA they informed me that they had no knowledge of Bill Ellis and 'cannot confirm whether he is a member of the ELCA or one of the other Lutheran bodies.' The 'Evangelical Lutheran' Ellis defines exorcism as 'a means of temporarily inducing an alternative personality … beneficial to some persons for whom conventional psychological or psychiatric therapy fails.' [2] For me, at whom he is more than willing to cast an aspersion, exorcism is the act of casting out demons (Mark 16: 17). It is not alternative therapy for failed psychology. Ellis is nonetheless an associate professor of Anglo-American Studies at Pennsylvania State University, USA. He received his PhD in English from Ohio State University in 1978. In that long-lost era, Ellis says students were told not to worry about the job market; so nor did he. He wrote his dissertation on the image of the mother in country music, drawing on Northrop Frye's theory of archetypes. It would take him six years to find a tenure-track job. Meanwhile, he taught English as an adjunct. He found work preparing the annotations to editions of Nathaniel Hawthorne's letters and notebooks, which gave him some credentials as a specialist in American literature. In 1984 he moved to Pennsylvania State's small branch campus in Hazleton, where, at the age of thirty-four, Ellis finally made the transition to a regular appointment. It was not a position designed for a scholar. Most of the 1,200 students are freshmen and sophomores. Ellis usually teaches two or three composition courses each semester. That means grading roughly one thousand pages of student writing per course. It is rare that he gets to offer an upper-division class, and rarer still that the topic is folklore, his primary field of scholarly interest. As for conducting a graduate seminar, the possibility never comes up because the campus has no graduate programmes. 'Bill has never been part of the mainstream of folklore scholarship,' says Gary Alan Fine, a professor of sociology at Northwestern University; adding: 'His work has always been quirky.' Quirky or not, Ellis felt his folkloric background qualified him to comment at length on the Highgate Vampire case. His 1993 Folklore article prompted my following observation: 'Reading like popular journalism of the most squalid kind, it loses no time in becoming a polemic wherein the personal prejudices and opinions held by Ellis dominate. A dry, impartial academic report it is not. His cynicism underscores every line as he tries to debunk anything and everything to do with demonic molestation and satanic ritual abuse. … Ellis strives to correlate the vampire panics associated with the Highgate Vampire case with satanic child abuse panics in Britain and America, particularly the appalling cases at Rochdale and the Orkney Islands. One might be forgiven for thinking that he is somewhat out on a limb.' …" I recall Bishop Seán Manchester saying that what Bill Ellis and Jacqueline Simpson (author of the Wikipedia entry) know about the Highgate Vampire case could be easily typed on the back of a postage stamp.
• TheVampirologist October 31, 2011
  Sigh. More bickering and petty-minded nonsense from Hogg who usually manages to bring the flow to a halt in order to assert his own personal agenda, and I think it will be clear to most people what that agenda is — negative remarks without a trace of constructive content, aimed, of course, at anyone supportive of Bishop Seán Manchester. He is also critical of David Farrant, but that is only because the latter does not trust him and won't play along with him. Hogg has nonetheless managed to ingratiate himself with many of Farrant's friends, including his eldest son and almost anyone he can find who is linked to this man. Not so with Bishop Manchester whose friends he avoids at all costs. As previously explained, Hogg started calling himself "The Vampirologist" a few weeks ago, previous to which he called himself "Amateur Vampirologist" prior to which "The Overseer" and prior to that "The Inquisitive One." I have been using the "Vampirologist" name for several years. My blog was originally called "Diary of a Vampirologist" which was then amended to "Journal of a Vampirologist." When it became apparent that it was not going to be kept as a journal, I changed my blog title to just "The Vampirologist." My name has always been "Vampirologist" and one of my blogs "Does A Wampyr Walk In Highgate?" — http://highgatevampire.blogspot.com — is taken from a newspaper headline featuring Bishop Seán Manchester that appeared in London, England, at a time (27 February 1970) when Hogg was not even born. Indeed, the author of "The Highgate Vampire" used it on many an occasion before Hogg even knew of the existence of Highgate Cemetery and its vampire!
• A Facebook user October 30, 2011
  Oh, and despite a few errors - Manchester can hardly complain, since he refused to participate ('he wished to devote himself to his church work and put his vampire-hunting past behind him') - Ellis' articles are solid introductions to the case. Indeed, the Wikipedia article on the Highgate case is primarily derived from his research. His bibliographies also thoroughly cite his sources. Considering how many newspaper articles there are on the case and related matters, that, alone, is invaluable. Certainly a much more reliable source than Manchester and Farrant's contradictory, revised and biased accounts. 'Vampirologist', perhaps you could do something useful here. Why don't you discuss that tape Tony Hill allegedly gave Manchester? The one where David's supposed to have admitted to hoaxing his sightings. Have you heard it?
• A Facebook user October 30, 2011
  Sigh. More crap. To set the record straight, I called my *blog* 'The vampirologist'. It wasn't my username. Our 'Vampirologist' here, on seeing that, changed his blog's name to 'The vampirologist', too. Prior to that, he'd also aped my 'Overseer' username and created a blog called, 'Did a wampyr walk in Highgate?' which ripped off the title of mine. Apart from 'Vampirologist', he's also called himself 'Demonologist', 'Gothic' and 'Dennis Crawford'. He's one to watch out for, Dylan. At least he and Dave have something in common: deception.
• TheVampirologist October 29, 2011
  I don't know what happened there, Dylan, because although I was logged in (or, at least, thought I was) I appeared as an anonymous contributor, which I am not. Dylan, you wrote previously: "What I am most interested in is how what seems to have started with a couple of kids doing a bit of showboating before the press (no great crime honestly) turned into a sort of short lived mass hysteria?" Who were the "couple of kids"? Bishop Seán Manchester was 25-years-old and David Farrant was 24-years-old at the time of the panics involving hundreds of members of the public. These two people were most prominent in the press. Or did you have somebody else in mind? There were some children interviewed on the Today programme, 13 March 1970, but their contribution was tiny compared to the research society's representative (Bishop Seán Manchester) and the claims of another man (David Farrant) who had written to a local newspaper on February 6th saying he had seen a ghost which he accepted was most probably a vampire in the same newspaper on March 6th under the front page heading "Why Do The Foxes Die?"
• TheVampirologist October 29, 2011
  Hogg started calling himself "The Vampirologist" a few weeks ago, previous to which he called himself "Amateur Vampirologist" prior to which "The Overseer" and prior to that "The Inquisitive One." I, on the other hand, have been using the "Vampirologist" net name for several years. My blog with that name goes back to a time when Hogg was still calling himself "The Inquisitive One" and "The Overseer" — long before he decided to adopt my username. This sort of back-biting is entirely Hogg's territory. It is really all he wants to do and he absolutely revels in it with appropriate obsessive gusto. Unfortunately for the rest of us it is exceptionally tedious and boring. This, as I have previously stated, is not what readers want to hear about or see on forums such as this one. Regarding the poorly researched attempt by American Bill Ellis to cover the Highgate Vampire case in a truly appalling article in Folklore (1993) and the modified chapter on Highgate Cemetery in his book Raising the Devil (2000) based on that article — which at least one university publisher turned down flat after reading the manuscript — I can do no better than offer Bishop Seán Manchester's excellent review of it that can be found at this link: http://www.holygrail-church.fsnet.co.uk/RaisingDevil.htm
• Anonymous October 29, 2011
  Hogg started calling himself "The Vampirologist" a few weeks ago, previous to which he called himself "Amateur Vampirologist" prior to which "The Overseer" and prior to that "The Inquisitive One." I, on the other hand, have been using the "Vampirologist" net name for several years. My blog with that name goes back to a time when Hogg was still calling himself "The Inquisitive One" and "The Overseer." Long before he decided to adopt my username. This sort of back-biting is entirely Hogg's territory. It is really all he wants to do and he absolutely revels in it with appropriate obsessiveness. Unfortuantely, for the rest of us it is exceptionally tedious and boring in the extreme. This, as I have previously stated, is not what readers want to hear about or see on forums. Regarding the poorly researched attempt by American Bill Ellis to cover the Highgate Vampire case in a truly appalling article in Folklore (1993) and the slightly modified chapter on Highgate Cemetery in his book Raising the Devil (2000) - which one university publisher turned down flat after reading the manuscript - I can do no better than offer Bishop Seán Manchester's review of it: http://www.holygrail-church.fsnet.co.uk/RaisingDevil.htm
• A Facebook user October 27, 2011
  P.S.: Dylan, if you're interested in things along those lines, I'll recommend an *actual* scholarly work on the case: Bill Ellis' ‘The Highgate Cemetery vampire hunt: the Anglo-American connection in satanic cult lore’, Folklore, vol. 104, no. 1-2, 1993, pp. 13–39. He also covered the case in 'Raising the devil: Satanism, new religions, and the media' (2000). Ironically, they're far better researched than either Manchester or Farrant's respective accounts.
• A Facebook user October 27, 2011
  Dylan, likewise. I think it spun out of control. Their constant need for attention eventually backfired on 'em. Especially in David's case. They obviously manipulated the media (and continue to do so), but you know what happens when you play with the devil...you get burned! lol :P What's also interesting, is the insane lengths the main parties will go to silence and belittle their critics, as you've seen here. Most people know the case has got more holes than swiss cheese, but guys (should I say, stalkers) like 'TheVampirologist' - who has ripped off my blog titles, stolen my usernames, etc. keep on trying to present themselves as 'serious researchers'. They're not. Neither of them are. They're interested in maintaining the 'franchise' (that's what they've turned it into) without fully appreciating how mad they actually come across. They even recycle the same rhetoric, as you've seen here.
• TheVampirologist October 26, 2011
  Who are the "couple of kids" to whom you refer, Dylan? You appear to have a preconceived notion about this case which is based on no real evidence. I nonetheless commend you for not showing interest in the blame game. There has been far too much of that already, not least on this thread. The previous commentator to your remarks certainly likes to engage in this kind of tomfoolery and spends much of his time repeating unsubstantiated nonsense about Bishop Seán Manchester which is usually gleaned from sources exceptionally antipathetic towards the bishop. He tries to capitalise on the fact that an anonymous commentator used words previous published by Bishop Manchester and others in the bishop's defence. This absurdly automatically prompts him to accuse the commentator of being Bishop Manchester. Today he claimed to a Facebook user (who curiously goes under the nomenclature "Kyle Van Helsing" on occasions) that at least two other people are the bishop. This is based on completely untrue allegations from Brendan Kilmartin who runs a forum where anyone who is remotely sympathetic to the bishop is prohibited from posting. Kilmartin himself is very friendly towards a man who daily wages a vendetta against Bishop Seán Manchester. Anthony Hogg is an integral cog in the misinformation machine. For example, someone waging a hate campaign against the bishop misinformed Don Ecker who in turn misinformed Anthony Hogg who who published the propaganda on his blog. Hogg then provided a link to this second-hand garbage regurgitated on his blog to the eldest son of the man waging a life-long vendetta. He, in turn, published the link provided by Anthony Hogg on his blog; a blog, moreover, that is exclusively devoted to defaming Bishop Manchester. At this point it comes full circle with three people disseminating libel originating with a hate campaigner. Regarding comments on this thread, the fact remains that Bishop Manchester was misrepresented in the Discovery film documentary and October Films accepted that their narrator's comments were factually inaccurate, duly apologised to him and subsequent transmissions (plus the DVD release) omit these false allegations. That should be the point and was the point being made by the anonymous commentator. Why does Bishop Manchester have to be accused (yet again) by Anthony Hogg of being that person? Something is being lost here for the sake of making false assumptions for reasons that will escape the majority of readers unless they are aware that the commentator, Anthony Hogg, has an axe to grind and is fulfilling an anti- Bishop Seán Manchester agenda that has been going on for some considerable time. It is really boring, unproductive and serves only to obscure what most want to really hear about. Should anyone want to discover what really happened at Highgate they should ask the man who was at the centre of the case four decades ago, namely Bishop Manchester, and they can do that by visiting his blog (see link below). He no longer gives media interviews on the topic (having provided hundreds of them in the past), but I am reasonably confident he will clear up any queries for individuals genuinely wanting to learn answers from the person who investigated the goings-on at Highgate Cemetery in the Sixties and Seventies. He can be reached at: http://therightreverendseanmanchester.blogspot.com
• Dylan October 25, 2011
  I am delighted that people are trying to set the record straight here. I am not too interested in blame, and I apologize for circulating any myths out there. What I am most interested in is how what seems to have started with a couple of kids doing a bit of showboating before the press (no great crime honestly) turned into a sort of short lived mass hysteria? When a 100 people storm a cemetery, something sociologically interesting has taken place.
• A Facebook user October 25, 2011
  Anonymous said: 'Regarding this video, Seán Manchester took the makers (October Films) to task over the narrator's erroneous remarks "self-proclaimed" and "obscure religious cult." Whoever invented that in the script hadn't done any meaningful research and certainly did not speak to Seán Manchester himself about his ordination, consecration and indeed denomination. When their lawyers were contacted, October Films immediately apologised in writing to Seán Manchester and removed the offending comments plus one or two other false quips, eg that he always carries a case of vampire hunting accoutrements wherever he goes. Hence subsequent transmissions and Discovery's DVD "True Horror: Vampires" omit these slurs. The Scandanavian broadcast on YouTube, however, is from the original transmission and unfortunately does not.' Meanwhile, from Sean Manchester's Facebook page (October 15 at 8:55pm): 'I was obliged to take the makers (October Films) of this film documentary to task over the narrator's erroneous remarks "self-proclaimed" and "obscure religious cult." Whoever wrote that part of the script obviously hadn't done any proper research on the matter and certainly had no contact with me. When their lawyers were contacted, October Films immediately apologised in writing and expurgated the offending comments plus one or two other completely false quips, eg that I always carry a case of vampire hunting accoutrements wherever I go, which I actually found rather amusing. Hence subsequent transmissions and Discovery's DVD "True Horror: Vampires" omit these slurs. The Scandanavian broadcast on YouTube, however, is the original and unfortunately does not.' Welcome aboard, Sean. No need to talk in the third person.
• Anonymous October 21, 2011
  Whilst it is true that a body was discovered propped behind the steering wheel of a car — the culprit being neither Seán Manchester or David Farrant — pretty much everything else in the above article by "Dylan" is completely inaccurate. Seán Manchester was and still remains an exorcist with traditionalist Catholic beliefs. He is not nor has he ever been a "magician." Furthermore, neither he nor David Farrant "were set to duel in the cemetery," which might go some way to explaining why it never took place. "Dylan" has done what so many before him have done, ie provided an inaccurate and misleading account based on unreliable newspaper reports selected for their sensational value absolutely nowhere close to what might have actually occurred. Regarding Seán Manchester's book, since it has been raised in the comments, perhaps it would be better if people read it for themselves without relying on second and third-hand opinions by people who were not present when the incidents described between its covers took place. Information about Seán Manchester's book "The Highgate Vampire" can be found at: http://vampirologist.blogspot.com/2011/10/highgate-vampire_15.html A video extract from a Discovery channel documentary about the case can be found at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34sTg7qxbDc Regarding this video, Seán Manchester took the makers (October Films) to task over the narrator's erroneous remarks "self-proclaimed" and "obscure religious cult." Whoever invented that in the script hadn't done any meaningful research and certainly did not speak to Seán Manchester himself about his ordination, consecration and indeed denomination. When their lawyers were contacted, October Films immediately apologised in writing to Seán Manchester and removed the offending comments plus one or two other false quips, eg that he always carries a case of vampire hunting accoutrements wherever he goes. Hence subsequent transmissions and Discovery's DVD "True Horror: Vampires" omit these slurs. The Scandanavian broadcast on YouTube, however, is from the original transmission and unfortunately does not.
• A Facebook user October 16, 2011
  The fascinating thing about the case - despite its dubious origins - is that we clearly have a modern day 'legend' on our hands. A vampire/ghost hunt under the guise of 'serious' investigations. An update of the Dracula story replete with occult rivalries, etc. It's a soap opera. But I think it also taps into the darker recesses of our subconscious, as evidenced by the mass hunt, itself. 'What if?'
• A Facebook user October 16, 2011
  Dylan, as you've seen from David's inability to refute my comments, instead resorting to hyperbole and insults as a way of 'discrediting' me, I think it's quite possible the story was a hoax which quickly snowballed into mass hysteria. The case began when David wrote a letter to the local paper, the Hampstead & Highgate Express, discussing ghost sightings he'd witnessed and professing 'no knowledge of the supernatural'. Shortly after that, other readers wrote in, discussing ghost encounters of their own - but not all necessarily from Highgate, itself. I have done an overview of the original letters, which you can read here: dawwih.wordpress.com/2011/04/10/spectral-consistency/ From that, you can see the origins of a modern 'myth' forming, from attempts to shoehorn disparate phenomena and witnesses into a single, cohesive 'entity'. I'm not sure how sincere David is about his initial sightings, because not only has his story changed over time (description, dates, etc.), but, apparently, there is a tape of him out there, discussing hoaxing the story (in fairness, David has previously denied its reality, but has also refused to sign a waiver releasing the alleged tape). Interestingly, David knew several of the letter writers, but did not disclose that at the time. One of his former associates said she wrote 'false letters' to a local paper, 'to stimulate publicity for the accused.' And, as I've shown, he was clearly willing to go along with the vampire idea, despite saying he never believed in it. If he had been a more vocal opponent, then the 'vampire' may have been nipped in the bud a lot sooner. Now, the vampire has outgrown both of them. They know that, which is why they still 'thrive' on the case nearly forty years later. But as to its origins, it came at a time of popular occult interest, graveyard desecrations, Hammer films were still in vogue. The idea of a *real* vampire living next door must've been very enticing with the public possibly being more open-minded to such phenomena. That said, it's clear a lot of people were down there 'for a laugh' (indeed, David's ex wife would later claim in court that that was the reason David used to go to the cemetery, too). About 150 people rocked up to the cemetery on 13 March 1970, according to contemporary news coverage. Whether or not they were serious, they were clearly enacting some form of cultural 'exorcism', shortly after the television broadcast which took the case national. Unfortunately, the vampire rumours which Sean and David helped spread also attracted a lot of unsavoury types, who compounded the vandalism already found in the neglected cemetery.
• Dylan October 14, 2011
  Dear David and Anthony, I am an absolute sceptic so would likely find myself disagreeing with both of you on numerous fronts. However call it what you will, mass hysteria, a case of life imitating art, or media hype cum self fulfilling prophecy, something fascinating happened in Highgate 40 years ago. I am most curious to know what your thoughts on why these events happened at all, preferably from a non-supernatural and more sociological standpoint.
• A Facebook user October 13, 2011
  You see, Dylan, Mr Hogg's last 2 repetitious prove exactly what I have been saying. A man apparently so obsessed with the Highgate 'vampire' and myself that he is quite literally incapable of thinking of anything fresh to say other than repeat his own 'cut and pasted' statements, which he has been doing for several years now. I still refuse to answer him, simply because I have answered all of these points before which remain on record. It seems as if he revels in having the 'last word' to reply from his nonsensical arguments. But he won't get it from myself. David Farrant, President BPOS
• A Facebook user October 13, 2011
  Just a reminder, here's the ethos of your Highgate Vampire Society: 'It is a matter of public record and should thus be open to continued input and debate, and not one that should not be allowed to become clouded or influenced by any who have no knowledge of events (which they certainly do not ‘own’) as these actually occurred or happened. There are many such persons around (including sensationalistic authors and members of the Press) but their stories should really be shared in total, and not be allowed to become "dictorial" in the sense that these necessarily represent the public view of things.' I clearly *do* have a knowledge of events (which is why you're unable to dispute what I've said), but you're veering dangerously to the 'dictorial' side of things in your attacks against me. Once again, I hope we can engage in a productive discussion on this thing. Let's start: do you disagree with any of the facts I've outlined? If so, which ones? Why?
• A Facebook user October 13, 2011
  "No, don't lets", so you *don't* want to have a productive discussion. I see. And no, I'm not trying to clog Dylan's blog. In fact, I find it regretful that our 'discussion' is being carried over from the forum to hear. You say I'm lying about you...but you haven't refuted *anything* I said. Even the YouTube clip from your own channel proves me right. As to my personal beliefs, I've got no problem criticising them. But context is important. You only bought them up to discredit me as someone worthy of contributions to this thing, because you can't refute what I've said. That's the reason. After all, what do they have to do with Highgate? I don't use them as an explanation for what went down there. I don't impose them on others. The funny thing is, you're imposing my beliefs on Dylan! lol I'm not a psychic researcher. I don't publish multiple books regurgitating the same thing. I don't claim that the thing at Highgate was a 'psychic entity with vampire-like characteristics' as you've done. I just think you should be accountable to your own claims and actions. I don't run from mine. But you've run from yours: your case is filled with revisions, publicity-seeking stunts and bandwaggoning. Fact. You keep blaming others for stuff you do, too. *That* is hypocritical. Like this: 'Yes, some people DID try to cash in on the Highgate case, or rather, my original part in it which', I didn't say cash in on the case, though, did I? I said 'vampire'. I know your word games, David. Despite trying to 'distance' yourself from vampires (a hollow gesture), you embrace them when it's convenient and there's either publicity or money involved. At least be honest about it. Let's recap: you used the vampire angle for your own devices. Fact (your own video will prove that). You have misrepresented me (referring to me as a member of Manchester's forum, without revealing I was banned, thereby suggesting I'm in 'collusion' with him). Fact. You have attacked my beliefs, as a way of cutting me out of the 'race' ('How is it possible to even converse with such an ignorant belief as this?'). Fact. You have tried to warp the discussion into a supernatural belief vs. supernatural belief debate, but that's not the angle I'm presenting at all. I very clearly said neither of us could prove our respective positions, to that extent, so I am interested in the building blocks of the case (witness reliability, does the story add up, are there any contradictions, etc.). You're also trying to make like the feud is one-sided, but it's obviously not. My concern, David, is simply that you represent the case and these matters fairly and accurately. You haven't been doing that. Try to.
• A Facebook user October 12, 2011
  "Let's have a productive discussion, David." (Anthony Hogg) Its not possible to have a 'productive discussion' with anybody who can only answer themselves, Dylan, so my answer to that is . . . "No, don't lets". All Mr Hogg is doing is trying to 'clog up' your Website with his own misguided assertions; a thing he is repeatedly doing on other Message Boards and Forums - not least on Arcadia which eventually resulted in him being banned for life. This is one reason why I decided to stop answering his childish assumptions and it is the reason I will not respond to him here other than to clarify to yourself some of the deliberate lies Mr Hogg is attempting to get readers to believe here. He is obviously obsessed with myself and the Highgate 'vampire case' (the sheer volume of his non-sensical posts here confirms this), but I am afraid I can only view him as a rather sad little individual who is simply not worth engaging in childish arguement. On top of this, he also appears to be suffering from some sort of 'persecution complex'. In a recent post, he said that I was 'attacking' his religion and spiritual beliefs. Not at all. If anything, he is attacking my own by telling me that I believe in real-life vampires and inventing nonsense to suit his own pre-judged theories in some desperate attempt to prove this. In fact, all I was doing was requoting his OWN beliefs which he stated to me on Arcadia in answer to a question I put to him asking him for his own definition as to the authenticity of 'ghosts'. He replied there that he believed that 'ghosts' were really 'hoards of demons' sent by Satan to deceive the living into believing that these were really the deceased spirits of friends or relatives. I cannot see how he sees that as atacking his faith, when it was he, himself, who said it! He thinks little - probably nothing - of doing this to other people; most notably myself. This, as I said before, I consider to be the ultimate in hypocrisy. And it is why I will not answer his ridiculous allegations. Yes, some people DID try to cash in on the Highgate case, or rather, my original part in it which . Indeed, some people are still trying to do so today: as evidenced by Mr Hogg's puerile remarks. David Farrant, President, BPOS
• A Facebook user October 12, 2011
  Let's take this from the top. In my first response here - which you went wildly off topic from - I said you helped perpetuate the vampire angle. That's true. You still hitch on the 'brand'. That's also true. I said you were cashing in on it. Also true. The best 'comeback' you've provided, is 'many people tried to cash in on the Highgate 'vampire' case, back in the late 60s'. This oblique reference (with an incorrect date) also includes yourself, but you haven't got the guts to say it. But it went further than that, too. After all, you did rig a nude photo in one of the burial vaults, because an American mag was offering you money. That's not 'propaganda', that's from one of your own books. If you can't refute my points, then resorting to personally attacking me only shows how weak your case is. Plus, the 'vampire' wasn't a 'vampire' in the late 60s. There's no contemporary evidence to prove that. None that's been supplied, anyway. The earliest public reference to the 'vampire' was Manchester calling the 'ghost' one in the Hampstead & Highgate Express, 27 February 1970. The following issue (6 March 1970) shows the first time you went along with it (even though you've since claimed you were 'humouring' the reporter). After that, you repeatedly posed for pictures wielding crosses and stakes. That's not stuff you hunt 'ghosts' with. That YouTube video, which shows you re-enacting one of your 'vigils' with a cross and stake? That's from 15 October that same year. It's also hosted on *your* YouTube channel. So, while you might try and distance yourself from 'bloodsucking vampires' (you emphasise 'bloodsucking', because you actually believe in other vampire types - the good old semantics game at play here), the fact remains that you helped create the Highgate vampire 'myth' by jumping on the 'bandwagon', so to speak. Again, that's fact. None of this you've refuted, none of which you can. So, please provide something productive to the conversation, not personal attacks. If you want to focus on the case, do so. If you want to undermine credibility, at least make it specific to the case, not general attacks on my character. Let's have a productive discussion, David.
• A Facebook user October 12, 2011
  Of course you don't, because it would prove me right. :) Thanks for the insight into your friendship with Gough, that it occurred after the interview. My participation was long after that. Again, the official reason was the correspondence. I've got the emails to back it up. I love how you flip the 'obsession' with the vampire onto me, even though you've published several volumes on it - plus further editions - journals, made TV appearances, radio interviews, etc. All that from the President of the Highgate Vampire Society. 'Obsessed' is another term you use to undermine critics. The same one Manchester does. But, as I've pointed out before (and you'd be aware of this too), you can't discuss the case much without mentioning either you or him. That's the price of making yourselves 'central' to it. Yes, a 'point of reference' you've been using for much longer than your involvement in the Society (as the video will show). So, it's a 'cash-in', like I said. It's ludicrous to claim the feud is one-sided, considering you're the publisher of 'Man, Myth and Manchester', 'The Seangate Tapes', 'The Adventures of Bishop Bonky', your online writings, et. al. Both of you are 'in it'. Anyone can see that and it's an insult to their intelligence to suggest otherwise. Your justification doesn't change that, as he does the same thing to you. Both of you claim to have the 'real story', but you often contradict your own accounts, too. That's fact. Hence, claims and counter-claims that come from both of you, sprinkled with some really, really nasty stuff to say about each other = a forty year old feud. Just like Dylan said. So, again, I hope you guys bury the hatchet. It'll be much more productive than the war between you two.
• A Facebook user October 12, 2011
  Please don't worry, Dylan, I have no intention of putting up links on your site which would only enable readers to view more of the same repetitious nonsense as demonstrated in the previous 2 posts from Mr Hogg. For the record, I was not a 'friend' of Andrew Gough's at the time he was running Arcadia website. Indeed, he still is. Andrew Gough first approached myself to ask me if I would give him an interview for his "17 Questions" slot which I duly did, and this was published on Arcadia. Subsequently Andrew and I became friends, and indeed he and his partner are coming over for dinner again around Hallowe'en. He could confirm what I said here, that the person was - still is - banned for life on Arcadia for betraying confidentialities and inundating it with unfounded allegations about myself, but we really have more interesting things to talk about than Mr Hogg's obsession with the so-called Highgate 'vampire'. Also, as a point or record, the Highgate Vampire Society was not started by myself, but author and historian Jennie Lee Cobban. I took over the running of this for her due to pressure of work, and the ongoing interest from people in the Highgate case. The name was a point of reference only, to a title which had been adopted by the national press, but it was not mean't to imply that either myself or Jennie really accepted the existence of blood-sucking vampires. If some other people do, then that is really their problem, and not mine! As I have already explained here, many people tried to cash in on the Highgate 'vampire' case, back in the late 60s, but this investigation was only one of dozens that occupied - and still occupies - the British Psychic and Occult Society. Some people seem to have an obsession with this particular case; but again, this is not really my problem but their own. Furthermore, any 'feud' that exists - or existed - between myself and Mr Sean Manchester - has always been entirely one-sided, in that I have only ever been forced to retract false innuendos and allegations about the Highgate case which I am again being forced to do here. David Farrant President, BPOS
• A Facebook user October 12, 2011
  As to being 'central' to the case, no one's denying that. But why do you think it's best known as the 'Highgate vampire'? You've used the term, yourself as a common 'reference' point (read: cash-in), one example being the title of your autobiography, 'In the shadow of the Highgate vampire'. Manchester's theory made the case famous; you piggybacked on it, as your publications (including 'Man, Myth and Manchester') and various media appearances reveal. So, he's 'central' to the case, too. You could even say you 'owe' him. How else would people (mostly) be aware of you? But the case isn't 'all about you'. And, of course, his claims are subject to scrutiny as much as yours are. His works are contradictory; like yours. Both of you use intimidation tactics to 'silence' critics and misrepresent them (as you've shown here). Despite the feud, you guys actually have a lot in common. For instance, you've both been banging on about it for forty years. Hopefully you guys will bury the hatchet one day, too, as the whole thing is rather silly.
• A Facebook user October 12, 2011
  '2nd hand repetitive', 'no personal involvement', 'genuine interest', 'pre-conceived conclusions', 'sabotage’, 'genuine questions', all nonsense terms and none of them refute my comments about you perpetuating the vampire theory yourself, despite trying to distance yourself from that fact. Again, the video says it all. So does your repetitious use of the word 'vampire'. As to 'sabotage', I went on the Supernatural World, first, to discuss the case. You came on after. Apparently, someone had 'informed' you of it. You said you wanted to discuss 'facts'. What you've done instead, is relate anecdotes, innuendo, attacks on me, attacks on Manchester, and have used the forum to advertise your merch. Your usual tactics. Another one is lies and misrepresentation. The Andrew Gough thing. I was *actually* banned from that forum for refusing to take down personal correspondence from my blog. I believed that Andrew was 'protecting' you, because you were able to get away with saying some pretty nasty stuff, while I kept getting censored. The forum's mod saw my blog entry reproducing the correspondence. They said if I didn't take it down, I would be perm-banned. I refused. They banned me. Incidentally, it later turned out that Andrew was a friend of yours... It had nothing to do with 'inundating them with irrelevant material'. That, itself, is a lie, which, if Dylan is interested (quite frankly, I doubt he is), then why don't you post him the link to the forum so he can be the judge? The specific areas of the forum where the case was discussed? Go on, I dare ya! lol Either way, I've since buried the hatchet with Andrew, as email correspondence will confirm. But you know that, because every time you've raised this 'life-ban' issue on the forum, I've explained it, again and again. You're pulling the same tricks on the forum - like trying to discredit me through my spiritual beliefs, and talking about my former membership on Manchester's forum, but deliberately leaving out the part where I was banned from it. These are not the traits of a truthful person, David, so I think Dylan's article was on the ball. I'm just sorry he has to be subjected to this guff.
• A Facebook user October 11, 2011
  Perhaps now you can see what I mean Dylan: more 2nd hand repetitive verbiage from a person who had absolutely no personal involvement in the Highgate case or events as these occurred some 40 years ago. I only gave a link to your website from my Blog as this receives a huge number of hits (645 since Sunday lunchtime, for example) may have had an interest in what you wrote here about the Highgate ‘vampire’ case – that’s all. The difference between having a genuine interest, however, and one or two people simply trying to invite answers or agreement just to meet their own pre-conceived conclusions, is not compatible with having objective discussion about the case. Mr Hogg is well known on the Internet for this sort of behaviour and for trying to ‘sabotage’ various Forums and Message Boards with opinions that bear no semblance to actual facts or reality. As an example, he was fairly recently given a life-ban from Andrew Gouth’s Arcadia Website for inundating them with irrelevant material about myself and breaking confidentialities by publishing private messages (supposedly) on the Internet. Those are the facts and I am still quite willing to answer any genuine questions about the Highgate case from your members should they have any. After all, I suppose, I was central to the case so can think of no other person better qualified to answer them! David Farrant, President, BPOS.
• A Facebook user October 11, 2011
  It is correct, because a) you posted the link to Dylan's blog entry on the forum b) you're regurgitating the same attacks from there as you've done here. That's 'overflowing'. You said that Dylan's post was erroneous, when it's actually a pretty fair representation of the case. My post, in turn, was a response to your own erroneous comments, namely trying to pin all the blame on Manchester. Now, it goes without saying that he deserves his fair share of criticism. But what I object to, is you passing all the buck over to him. That's very deceptive, in light of your own actions. You did encourage the vampire theory. That's fact. You even referred to it as one of your big 'regrets'. However, you certainly don't 'regret' banging on about the case, forty years later as well as using the 'Highgate Vampire' as a brand name. You can't have your cake and eat it too. As to the laughable claim that I am an 'irrelevant third party', your self-publishing 'company', BPOS has featured satirical representations of me as 'Cousin Hoggy', and your updated edition of 'Pact with the devil' will discuss a gentleman from 'Southern Australia'. It's pretty obvious who's been referred to, despite your repetitious use of innuendo. Strange way of saying my involvement is 'irrelevant'. I am interested in the claims, not yourself. That's why I don't ask about your personal life. You paint me as 'obsessed', 'irrelevant' and attack my spiritual beliefs because I openly criticise your claims, not because I'm irrelevant. That bit about me not being born then, not there, yadda yadda, you don't say that stuff about your supporters who weren't born then, either. You're really clutching at straws with stuff to attack me, David, and it's quite sad. If you toned down the hostility, the conversation would be much productive. So, get a grip, mate. You'll be ok.
• A Facebook user October 10, 2011
  It is not correct to say that this discussion has 'overflowed' here from the Supernatural World, Dylan. In fact it couldn't be further from the truth. You will be aware that the comments made about myself and Mr Manchester were made on your own website, and did not even mention irrelevant third parties such as Anthony Hogg. I merely used my right of reply to intimations made on this website which you inadvertently made in error. Facts which were based mainly on sensational newspaper reports of some 40 years ago, some of which I wanted to clarify. It is Mr Hogg himself who has posts repetitively on SNW and who has tried to carry his arguements onto your forum. I merely pointed out how his first post here was in error and as you can see the result is a repetitive and verbose essay mainly on his favourite subject - i.e. myself! So in this respect I have nothing to apologise for, and if you want to take up Mr Hogg's own suggestion to throw him off your forum, it could only make it a much more interesting place. David Farrant
• A Facebook user October 10, 2011
  Dylan, really sorry about this. Our discussion's overflowed from The Supernatural World forum. I don't want to pollute your blog with two much of this 'back and forth', so if you wanna boot me off it, I'll understand. P.S. Your blog's brilliantly designed. Keep up the good work!
• A Facebook user October 10, 2011
  David, I really, really hate to protract this discussion over Dylan's blog, but I'll respond, anyway, lest you make out that I'm trying to dodge your questions. Yes, I confirmed the ghost thing. Why would I try and hide it? However, you're not using that example to relate to the case, but rather use it as a way of discrediting me. At least be honest about it. And yes, it is a matter of personal faith. At the end of the day, that's what 'proof' of the supernatural is: we can neither totally prove, nor disprove it. That leaves us with a stalemate. That's not to say people shouldn't be discouraged from trying to obtain it, however. What I *am* saying is, a natural explanation should always be sought and exhausted before a supernatural conclusion is drawn, in terms of 'proof' for paranormal phenomena. As to consistently asking you for proof, try and understand the context. The case you've 'built' to 'prove' the existence of paranormal phenomena at Highgate Cemetery is decidedly weak. It consists of anecdotal evidence, dodgy practices, publicity-seeking and shoehorning the evidence in your favour, for instance, claiming that many people saw the 'same thing'. Even Prof. Bill Ellis knows that's not true. Therefore, it's the *components* of the case I am interested in, i.e. how you've 'built' your case and whether those elements stand up to basic scrutiny. If they don't, then clearly, something is amiss. Naturally, that touches a raw nerve for you, as you have promoted yourself and the case for over forty years and continue to write books and generate revenue and media attention from it. Therefore, I am a 'threat' to that franchise, by virtue of openly questioning it. Yes, I'm a skeptic, but anyone who closely reads through your material would be one too, if they noticed the 'revisions' you've made to your story over time and the way you try and intimidate - and belittle - critics. You keep mentioning 'over the internet', as if that is a relevant argument. It's not. The internet is a means to disseminate information. One of many. You write on the internet, yourself. Your comment is on the internet. Should your word be automatically dismissed because it's online? Of course not. The problem is, you're putting the horse before the cart. You're trying to establish that the psychic phenomena existed, but the evidence you use to determine that, is decidedly flimsy. Worse, you openly mock Manchester's vampire theories because they're 'nonsense' and 'vampires don't exist', yet, where's your proof for 'psychic entities with vampire-like characteristics', which you believe fuelled the vampire belief in the first place? That is a double standard, something you're trying to impose on me. All of this 'flipping it back' business also hides the fact that even if you don't believe a vampire haunted the cemetery, you certainly promoted the idea that it did. You encouraged it. Again, all Dylan has to do is watch the video. Instead of addressing that, you're trying to say I'm asking you to prove 'psychic phenomena'. That's a decidedly warped 'comeback' to what I originally wrote. Do try and stick to one topic at a time, David, then we'll get a productive discussion from this thing.
• A Facebook user October 10, 2011
  By his own admission here, Anthony Hogg is really confirming what I said in my last post i.e. that he accepts of ghosts (rather that these are really demons sent by the devil), but goes on to assert that there is ‘no need to prove this’ (indeed, he admits that he cannot) because this just involves a question of his personal faith. Fair enough, Anthony. But then the inevitable question arises as to why he consistently demands people like myself to produce ‘scientific proof’ of psychic phenomena, and condemns them when they are unable to do so over the Internet? He would probably argue that he is only asking for proof of ‘material facts’, conveniently forgetting that we are not dealing with material facts, but unexplained phenomena which themselves, adhere to material facts. That is the whole point! This surely is the ultimate in hypocrisy! But then the bible is full of such examples as Christ Himself demonstrated. “Thou hypocrite. You can see the mote in thy brother’s eye, but perceiveth not the beam that is in your own eye” etc, etc. Afraid the only word for that is hypocrisy. And hypocrisy on a grand scale into the bargain! David Farrant.
• A Facebook user October 10, 2011
  Dylan, unfortunately, David is misrepresenting myself, as you'll see from reading my blogs. I don't just use the internet, and 'newspaper reports' are integral to the case, as you'd know...because that's where it was first covered before he wrote his books and Manchester wrote his. More importantly, David uses the same newspaper reports in his own writings *and* he writes on the internet, too, thereby shooting himself in the foot. Yes, I was a member of Mr. Manchester's forums...several years ago. But what David deliberately omits, is that I was also banned from his forums, for starting my own. I am very much independent, as I'm not on David or Manchester's 'side'. I have been critical of both sides, as, frankly, they have said and done a lot of dodgy things. As to my belief in ghosts being demons, yes, that's true. I am a Protestant Christian, and, theologically speaking, that's an element found in our beliefs. However, I don't impose my Christian beliefs on the case. They're of a personal nature. I examine the case through the lens of evidence and the claims and counter-claims made. Despite David's portrayal, I am not devoid of rational thought! lol I am not condemning David's beliefs. He's entitled to them. But if he proclaims certain things as 'facts', then they're entitled to scrutiny. You'll find the same ethos embodied in his Highgate Vampire Society's manifesto. See: http://www.davidfarrant.org/about/thvs.html It is a shame he's unable to uphold them, himself. All said, I trust your own judgement. I believe my writings will vindicate me and reveal the malicious nature of David's statements. If you disagree with things I've written, you're more than welcome to challenge them. You'll even note that David didn't once *deny* perpetuating the vampire angle, which you'll see in the YouTube clip, anyway. All the best.
• A Facebook user October 9, 2011
  Dylan, it was not my intention to get involved in long arguments on your website; especially in view of Mr Tony Hogg’s comments as referenced above. Can I just point out, that Tony Hogg knows absolutely nothing about events that took place in Highgate in the late 60s / early 70s. He is only repeating sensational newspaper reports as supplied to him by Mr Sean Manchester when he (Tony Hogg) was a member of one of Mr Manchester’s numerous message boards devoted to attacking myself back in 2006. Mr Hogg has taken it upon himself – for some strange reason – to repeat malicious propaganda originally fed to himself by Mr Sean Manchester. The ‘facts’ in his quotes he has blindly repeated here are without any substance whatsoever, representing only the views – or speculations – of a man who was not even born at the time and certainly was not in England before he even came into existence. Mr Hogg is a typical ‘pseudo-researcher’ who gleans all of his evidence from the internet, which to say the least is often repetitive and bears no resemblance whatsoever to facts as these actually occurred. Please let me repeat, I went to prison in 1974 for offences allegedly committed at Highgate Cemetery which I did not even commit. Other people – such as Mr Manchester – have capitalised upon all the publicity surrounding my name and Mr Hogg is blindly following in the footsteps of such parasitical non-entities with a view to attempting to establish himself as some sort of serious researcher. He is not! He is limited only to repetitive statements, which he appropriates in an attempt to prove his preconceived agenda and ‘beliefs’. For the record, as an example, Mr Hogg has stated in public that he actually believes that ‘ghosts’ are really ‘hoards of demons’, sent by the devil to deceive the living in to believing that they are really the deceased relatives or acquaintances of persons or people they may known in real life. I have reminded him of this fact on countless occasions, and asked him how he can justify such a belief and condemn others for their own personal viewpoints into the existence of genuine psychic phenomena. So far he has always refused to give me an answer to my question, other than to claim that this is ‘different’ because it is a matter of his ‘personal faith.’ I have frequently asked him how he can accept that ‘devilish demons’ (or ‘vampires’ even) can only be a matter of faith for him, when on the other hand, he is frequently claiming ‘scientific evidence’ from myself is required to prove the existence of the supernatural. I ask you?! How is it possible to even converse with such an ignorant belief as this? He is saying on one hand that I should be expected to prove evidence of the conclusions I have drawn over my years as a psychic investigator; when on the other hand when asked in return he states that he does not have to do so because his belief in demonic entities is based solely on his personal faith (please note – he avoids the question of any scientific proof – which he has demanded – when asked to do so!) So I do not really wish to enter into such a narrow minded discussion as the one Anthony Hogg seems to be promulgating on your forum. I go back to my previous post about some of the events that REALLY happened at Highgate Cemetery. I am always prepared to answer further questions. But there is a difference, surely, between genuine questions and flippant second hand accusations. David Farrant President, British Psychic and Occult Society
• A Facebook user October 9, 2011
  P.S. Apologies for not 'signing in' for my previous comment.
• Anonymous October 9, 2011
  Good morning Dylan, Firstly, some disclosure: my name is Anthony Hogg. I write a blog about this case and have found many, many elements to be dodgy. The magician stuff is just the tip of the iceberg! Your post is actually a reasonably accurate coverage of events at Highgate. Mr. Farrant, of course, would wish to disassociate himself from the vampire tag, perhaps due to the aftereffects of the vampire theory's entrance to the press (graveyard vandalism, vampire hunts, etc.), but he certainly encouraged the idea of a vampire at the cemetery...and also said he witnessed it, himself. See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-VcUq-ohXVY Note: this appearance on BBC's '24 hours' was a mere two weeks after he was released after his first arrest in 1970 (the one where he was found in the cemetery with a cross and stake). It's true that the charges against him were probably overexaggerated due to him being a 'public nuisance', but his publicity-seeking antics at the cemetery - including having a girlfriend pose, nude, in one of the burial vaults (for cash an American magazine offered to pay him), shows there's more to this thing than meets the eye. In another 'case' he participated in, in which a newspaper reporter was 'coincidentally' present, his assistant testified in court that Farrant got her to write false letters to the press to drum up publicity for him. The reporter was her cousin. Dylan, if you do intend on delving into this thing any further, be prepared for claims, counter-claims, and major headaches!
• A Facebook user October 8, 2011
  'Eventually Farrant was arrested when found in the churchyard next to Highgate Cemetery with a crucifix and a wooden stake, and in 1974 was jailed "for damaging memorials and interfering with dead remains in Highgate Cemetery." Though neither magician ever found the supposed vampire, real graves were ransacked and real corpses staked and beheaded in the search.' Dear Dylan, Allow me to correct this statement. Briefly, while it is true that I was arrested and sentenced to almost 5 years imprisonment in 1974, for alleged offences of vandalism at Highgate Cemetery, I did not infact commit these offences. Neither did ransack graves or stake and behead real corpses as your article suggests. It is true that a headless 150 year body of a woman was discovered in the cemetery in August 1970, but I was never accused of this offence, and it was the result of the work of cranks and vandals, who had gone to Highgate Cemetery to 'stake corpses' after hearing one Mr Sean Manchester speak on national television advocating such activity. Additionally, although I was accused of the 'body in the car' crime which you refer to, I was acquitted of this charge after the the real culprits confessed in open court at the Old Bailey in June 1974. This part of your reportage is probably due to sensational press reports based on my 1974 trial, when words such as 'witchcraft', 'Satanism', 'nude orgies' etc became associated with my name, as well as a plethora of disinformation regarding myself which has been made available on the internet. Regarding your comments about a 'blood sucking vampire' dwelling in Highgate Cemetery, such comments were never made by myself but by one Mr Sean Manchester who claimed in a self-published book he wrote in 1985 titled "The Highgate Vampire", that he had eventually tracked the vampire down and 'staked it though the heart' at a location in the vicinity of Highgate Cemetery. He goes on to claim (and this book is written by himself, we should remember) that he, and an 'assistant' called "Arthur" then set light to coffin in the overgrown gardens at this deserted location, and 'consigned it to the bowels of hell'. He then goes on to claim in the book that he later tracked down a disciple of this so-called Highgate vampire (in 1982 to be precise) that was buried by his then home in an old cemetery in Old Southgate. He claims he laid in wait for her one night - after stripping naked in this small graveyard - and summoned her forth with a stake ready in his hand. According to him, this vampiric wraith appeared in the form of a beautiful young vampire, but immediately changed into a 'giant spider'. Manchester claims he staked this spider through the heart after it had failed to reach him in a protective circle he had inscribed upon the ground. It let out a terrible 'shriek' while Mr Manchester collapsed back into his self-made circle, sobbing uncontrollably. He remained there until dawn, and when the light broke he witnessed impaled on his stake not the spider, but the form of a woman (in fact his then current girlfriend) whom he called 'Lusia', who had now reverted to her true dead state... "It was poor Lusia, not now the devil's undead, but one of God's true dead". Well, that is what Mr Manchester claims in his book (rather, books as he released another version of it in 1992) so i really would ask you to try to get your facts right before associating Mr Manchester's alleged activities with my own. In other words, I am a serious psychic investigator who does not even accept the existence - of real life vampires. Mr Manchester may well do, but that is really his problem, and not my own. Hope you don't mind me setting the record straight. As to your remark about 'full on maniacs' , I can only say that I am not one of these - there was only one 'maniac' involved in this case, and his name - as you have mentioned - is Mr Sean Manchester. Yours, David Farrant