Loons come in many disguises
Some loons take it upon themselves to defend all sorts of claims and people, in this JREF thread you can read the entire diatribe from a person calling him-/herself 'Myth Buster' who where on a mission to redeem the reputation of a mr Sean Manchester a self-proclaimed Vampire Hunter who apparantly had a falling out with another loon (sorry 'Psychic Investigator') David Farrant some 30 odd years ago, this ended in Myth's banning from the forum due to the lack of respect he showed some asscociates of mr Farrant. All in all a highly amusing read (in my opinion) but not so informative as you would like.
138 comments:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=71335&page=15
"Forget ‘blood-sucking vampires’ and so-called’ evil spirits, because I don’t mean that." - David Farrant (JREF, January 24th, 2007, 06:43 PM)
Oh really?
The see a photograph of David Farrant with wooden stake raised and clasped in both his hands, wearing a Catholic rosary plus a large crucifix around his neck, get a copy of the London Evening News, 29 September 1970. Such a picture was published in connection with his arrest on the night of 17 August 1970 and subsequent imprisonment on remand for vampire hunting in Highgate Cemetery.
What I want to know is why nobody on the JREF forum is taking Farrant to task and asking why he is lying about his belief in vampires and evil spirits?
For example:
http://groups.msn.com/HighgateVampire/shoebox.msnw?action=ShowPhoto&PhotoID=11
The Hampstead & Highgate Express, 6 March 1970, carried this report on its front page:
“Mr David Farrant, 24, who reported seeing a ghost last month, returned to the spot last weekend and discovered a dead fox. ‘Several other foxes have also been found dead in the cemetery,’ he said at his home in Priestwood Mansions, Archway Road, Highgate. ‘The odd thing is there was no outward sign of how they died. Much remains unexplained, but what I have recently learnt all points to the vampire theory as 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'."
On the JREF forum David Farrant has categorically denied his support for the vampire theory and his pursuit of the vampire in Highgate Cemetery where he was arrested on the night of 17 August 1970 with a cross and stake in his possession. Yet all the evidence, including interviews he gave at the time, suggests otherwise. These interviews are now available on CD.
http://www.gothicpress.freeserve.co.uk/CD.htm
The unabridged text of an interview with Farrant on Today (Thames Television), 13 March 1970, follows:
Sandra Harris: “Did you get any feeling from it? Did you feel that it was evil?”
David Farrant: “Yes, I did feel it was evil because the last time I actually saw its face, and it looked like it had been dead for a long time.”
Sandra Harris: “What do you mean by that?”
David Farrant: “Well, I mean it certainly wasn’t human.”
Farrant's second interview was on 24 Hours (BBC), 15 October 1970. Viewers see him entering Highgate Cemetery, removing a cross and stake from his belt, then prowling amongst the tombs, reconstructing his stalking of the vampire in the graveyard on the night of his arrest when police discovered him hunting vampires in August 1970.
Laurence Picethly: “On August the seventeenth, Farrant decided to pay a midnight visit to the cemetery to combat the vampire once and for all. At the cemetery, Farrant was forced to enter by the back wall [footage shows him entering via the rear of the cemetery], as he still does today. He armed himself with a cross and stake, and crouched between the tombstones, waiting. But that night police, on the prowl for vandals, discovered him. He was charged with being in an enclosed space for an unlawful purpose, but later the Clerkenwell magistrate acquitted him. Now, in spite of attempts by the cemetery owners to bar him, Farrant and his friends [none of whom were discovered by the police or subsequently identified by Farrant] still maintain a regular vigil around the catacombs in hope of sighting either the vampire or a meeting of Satanists.”
The televised reconstruction continued with Farrant demonstrating his stalking technique with a cross in one hand and a sharp wooden stake in the other, and concluded with a very brief interview with Laurence Picethly.
David Farrant: “We have been keeping watch in the cemetery for … [pauses] … since my court case ended, and we still found signs of their ceremonies.”
Laurence Picethly: “Have you ever seen this vampire?”
David Farrant: “I have seen it, yes. I saw it last February, and saw it on two occasions.”
Laurence Picethly: “What was it like?”
David Farrant: “It took the form of a tall, grey figure, and it … [pauses] … seemed to glide off the path without making any noise.”
The interview with Farrant ends at this point. What appears above is his interview reproduced it in its entirety.
Barrie Simmons, a journalist, joined David Farrant for a "midnight date with Highgate's Vampire" and recorded the following in the London Evening News, 16 October 1970:
"I joined a macabre hunt among the desecrated graves and tombs for the vampire of Highgate Cemetery. ... David Farrant, 24, was all set, kitted out with all the gear required by any self-respecting vampire hunter. Clutched under his arm, in a Sainsbury's carrier bag, he held the tools of his trade. There was a cross made out of two bits of wood tied together with a shoelace and a stake to plunge through the heart of the beast. Vampire hunting is a great art. There is no point in just standing around waiting for the monster to appear. It must be stalked. So we stalked. Cross in one hand to ward off the evil spirits, stake in the other, held at the ready. Farrant stalked among the vaults, past the graves, in the bushes and by the walls. When we had finished he started stalking all over again."
These amateurish vampire hunting antics resulted in a five column report from Barrie Simmons in the Evening News, together with a half-page feature of photographs of Farrant demonstrating his "vampire stalking" technique, but little else. Farrant had told the journalist in the same report: "If we see the vampire ... it will give you a horrible fright." Uhmm, yes, precisely. I think we can safely describe that as a distinct possibility if you bumped into a real vampire.
Farrant, known locally as "Birdman" because of a macaw that sat on his shoulder as he frequented pubs in the area, was a figure of fun in and around Highgate in the late 1960s and beginning of the 1970s. Nobody viewed his publicity stunts as anything more than foolishness to attract attention to himself. Certainly his wife and friends saw it as just "harmless fun."
“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.” (The Sun, 21 June 1974)
Soon after his brief stint as an amateur, lone vampire hunter, Farrant hung up his cross and stake and replaced them with pentagrams, black candles and ritual daggers. This led to more arrests and a stiff prison sentence from which he has perhaps understandably never fully recovered. His nickname "Birdman" took on a completely new meaning after he did some serious "bird" - cockney slang for serving a jail sentence (Farrant is a cockney) - following a sentence of four years and eight months meted out at the Old Bailey in June 1974 for offences committed at Highgate Cemetery and for threatening police witnesses with black magic in an attempt to pervert the course of justice over his friend's sex case.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2006500393,00.html
One thing about which the genuine investigators of the Highgate case are absolutely certain is that no authentic reports of anything supernatural or kindred disturbances have taken place at Highgate Cemetery for at least three and a half decades. The person still making these wild and unsubstantiated allegations - and it is only one person - is David Farrant who is attempting to manufacture a new scare that the vampire is active again in the graveyard. Yet no scrap of evidence is provided. No witnesses have been identified. No testimony can be checked. Not one person has independently come forward to verify such a claim which remains the fodder of newspaper hacks who have been fed this latter-day attempt to jump on the bandwagon of the Highgate Vampire case by the same man who tried to exploit it thirty-seven years ago.
"Farrant said: 'The sighting of a tall, black figure in April [2005] on Swains Lane makes me think the vampire is active again. On my visit, I saw the bricked-up vault, which some occultists say is inhabited by the vampire. I am not really welcomed at the cemetery'."
http://www.pentaclemagazine.org/pn760/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1551
And finally, to read about Farrant's "ritual sex act and cat sacrifice to summon up a vampire in Highgate Cemetery" see a copy of the
Hornsey Journal, 16 November 1979.
Wow this isn't Sean Manchester is it? or can it be the mysterious "Myth buster"?....
A transcript purporting to be that of the BBC television documentary 24 Hours, 15 October 1970, appeared on the JREF forum a little while back courtesy of David Farrant. It contains significant error and a number of misleading interpolations. The tampered transcript originated with "swampfink" aka Kev Demant who some years back used to promote the fabrications of Farrant, but does so no longer. Demant now finds Farrant disseminating his misrepresentation of the 24 Hours programme in copied and pasted form on the James Randi board, a place for hardened sceptics who find in Farrant a most willing ally.
Two examples in quotes will be addressed.
"The Society opperates [sic] out of this small incense smelling living room in North London. Among other accourements [sic](muffled) ... practice, Manchester keeps an alchemy set of chemicals in bottles and several magical circles inscribed with the many titles of the powers of good. (C/U of pentagram on wall; cut to Highgate Cemetery)"
Why does Deamnt (and now Farrant who has copied and pasted this misrepresention) suggest that the two words "of his" are "muffled"? They are as clear as all the other words. The words in brackets regarding a "pentagram on wall" were added by "swampfink" and refer to items not seen in connection with the British Occult Society but in connection with diabolism at Highgate Cemetery. No pentagram was shown on the wall or anywhere else in the "incense smelling room in North London."
Pentagrams are used in Freemasonry, magic and witchcraft. This symbol did not appear anywhere during the filmed sequence with Seán Manchester. Shown were several symbols representing good, eg a Celtic Cross, a Knight's Cross, a hexagram (symbol for Judaism) etc.
Laurence Picethly's narration immediately prior to his introduction of Seán Manchester, however, refers to "Satanist symbols" including "pentacles" on the walls of a desecrated tomb at Highgate Cemetery.
When examined in context this is what the BBC film narration actually states: "This desecration was utterly different to anything that had happened before at Highgate Cemetery. This time there was no lead missing from the coffin and there were pentacles and other Satanist symbols chalked here on the walls. These indications of a black ritualism at work aroused the curiosity of Seán Manchester, 26-year-old president of the British Occult Society. ... The Society operates out of this small incense-smelling living room in North London. Among other accoutrements of his practice, Manchester keeps ... etc."
Although reference is made to alchemical bottles during this introductory narration, none were apparent in the film. In fact, they did not exist and were an unfortunate embellishment by the narrator to bottles of holy water and consecrated oil.
Another example:
"LAURENCE PICETHLY On August 17th, the former associate of Sean Manchester, Mr. Allan [sic] Farrant, who used to own this Tobacconist Shop in Highgate, decided to pay a midnight visit to the cemetery to combat the vampire once and for all. At the cemetery, Farrant was forced to enter by the back wall (C/U of DF leaping into the cemetery), as he still does today. He armed himself with a cross and a stake and crouched between the tombstones, waiting. But that night, police on the prowl for vandals discovered him. He was charged with being in an enclosed space for an unlawful purpose but later the Clerkenwell Magistrate acquitted him."
A complaint was made at the time to the BBC over the words "former associate." This complaint remains on file. The BBC responded to the effect that this was only a claim made by Farrant but as he did say it they felt it was acceptable to leave it in. They qualified this by also saying that it did not mean it was true and they expected viewers to take into consideration elsewhere in the film where Laurence Picethly states: "Seán Manchester regards Farrant as an amateur." It was also apparent in the film that Seán Manchester was completely separate from the lone "vampire hunter" who had been arrested in the previous August.
Demant knows better than most (because of his obsession with this topic) that David Farrant was no former associate of Seán Manchester, but rather an interloping charlatan looking for a suitable bandwagon to board.
The above in quotes is extracted from Google's cache of http://members.fortunecity.co.uk/swampfink/24hrs2.htm as retrieved on 3 April 2006. The original page uploaded by Demant has not too surprisingly disappeared. However, Farrant has resurrected it as his own work and posted it on the JREF forum to add to the plethora of misleading and fabricated nonsense already appearing there under his name.
You are really a quite obsessed fella' aren't you...
You do seem to like to quote people dont you... How about this one:
“The Highgate Vampire” . . .
. . .. “In all the years I have known David Farrant, I have found not a single shred of evidence to suggest that the least of these things are true. I do not believe that he has ever partaken in a real black magic ceremony, nor do I believe that he is capable of harming an animal, not even for publicity. Of the charges relating to graveyard damage I believe him to be innocent also. Apart from being something of a nuisance to people, the only damage that Farrant has been responsible for is that which was self-inflicted”.
The Highgate Vampire, 1985, Pgs. 80-81
I'll let Seán Manchester answer for himself by quoting him from his memoir Stray Ghosts. This is what he wrote about the appraisal made of Farrant in the British Occult Society's first edition of The Highgate Vampire:
'In my first unexpurgated account of the Highgate case, I tendered the following opinion: “I have found not a single shred of evidence to suggest that the least of these things are true.” [The Highgate Vampire, British Occult Society, 1985, page 80.] But I slowly became less confident in that view, and accordingly expurgated it from the 1991 edition. The simple fact of the matter is that I do not know how far he is capable of going, or has gone. He had broken the law before I ever met him, using two British passports — the phoney one being in the name of “Allan Aden Ellson.” To own this passport meant that he had acquired Crown property through deception by falsifying information on the application form. Had it been known at the time by the authorities, he would have been arrested and charged with a serious offence. He was causing the BOS/VRS a lot of personal inconvenience, and was obviously a sick and depraved individual. But how sinister, or even satanic, was he really? Two people who have known him longer than anyone else, Anthony and Farrant’s first wife, Mary, are convinced that his witchcraft and occult stunts were utterly phoney. In that regard I would concur, but I can no longer opine with certainty just how far or not he is willing to go in the pursuit of his craving for publicity.
'Shortly before and for a period following his imprisonment in 1974, I attempted to gain Farrant’s confidence in order to discover the truth about his alleged “occult” activities. The conclusions I arrive at are published in The Vampire Hunter’s Handbook, a work that covers this matter comprehensively: “My personal view is that he has become possessed by demonic influences. His behaviour, by any standard, is extremely obsessive.” His self-styled organisation, rarely consisting of more than one member, I deduce “did not have the same appeal [as other witchcraft groups], owing to the ‘high priest’s’ total lack of occult knowledge and contradictory statements.” [The Vampire Hunter’s Handbook, Gothic Press, 1997, pages 55 & 87.]
'From the very beginning — when his acquaintances knew him only as “Allan” — to the last moment I spoke to him [that brief meeting, after a gap of five years, took place in London’s Highgate Wood at dusk on 24 January 1987, as recorded in From Satan To Christ, Holy Grail, 1988, pages 73-74], Farrant, in the absence of any corroborating witness, would frequently ridicule witches, occultists and also members of any mainstream religious faith. For him witchcraft and the occult was only a means to an end. My impression was that he actually believed none of it. He saw those who took such things seriously as being only worthy of his contempt. His raison d’être was and remains an agenda where his manufactured publicity masks deep-rooted insecurities that probably stem from childhood. By dabbling in these dangerous areas, however, Farrant opened himself to the very thing he privately scorned behind closed doors.'
"I am dismissing the 30-35 year-old newspaper reports that Manchester [sic] keeps desperately trying to introduce. The majority of those have been taken deliberately out of context to confuse events as these actually occurred. I was acquitted on many of the charges to which the police statements related, but this is conveniently not mentioned." - David Farrant 02:32 AM, January 26, 2007 - http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=72719&page=2
The thirty to thirty-seven-year-old press articles include reports of court proceedings which are clearly obliged to be recorded accurately. And, let's face it, Farrant was not aquitted of of the following crimes:
In November 1972 at Barnet Magistrates’ Court Farrant was found guilty of indecency in Monken Hadley churchyard under the Ecclesiastic Courts Jurisdiction Act 1860.
In June 1974 at the Central Criminal Court, London, Farrant was found guilty of malicious damage in Highgate Cemetery by inscribing black magic symbols on the floor of a mausoleum.
He was also found guilty of offering indignities to remains of the dead via black magic rites in Highgate Cemetery where photographs were taken of a naked female accomplice in a tomb.
He was also found guilty of threatening police witnesses in a separate case where his associate, John Pope, was subsequently found guilty of indecent sexual assault on a young boy. Pope, on his current website, describes himself as a “master of the black arts.”
He was also found guilty of the theft of items from Barnet Hospital where he worked briefly as a porter in late 1970.
He was also found guilty of the illegal possession of a handgun and ammunition kept at Farrant's address, which also contained a black magic altar beneath a massive mural of a face of the Devil or Count Dracula (take your choice) that had featured in various newspapers, not least full front page coverage of the Hornsey Journal, 28 September 1973.
Farrant was arrested in early 1974 and held on remand until his trials at the Old Bailey in June 1974. He received a prison sentence of four years and eight months. He was released on parole in the autumn of 1976.
Two libel suits brought by Farrant resulted in the News of the World (on a claim that his publicity-seeking was a substitute for his failed sexual libido) failing to produce their principal defence witness owing to Farrant making sure she remained in her native France.
He lost another libel case against the Daily Express (who had accused him of being a black magician and of being insane) where £20,000 court costs were awarded against him.
In the News of the World action, which he won on a technicality, he was awarded the derisory sum of £50. The newspaper’s star witness who failed to appear for their defence was Martine de Sacy, an ex-girlfriend of Farrant’s who was identified as the naked female in the tomb at the Old Bailey in 1974. Farrant persuaded her not to appear, causing the News of the World to lose their star witness.
Hi Clu and Vampire,
Personally I find all this absurd bickering over the minutiae of 40 odd years ago absolutely ridiculous, so much so that it has become somewhat addictive!
If you’re really luck you will get theses’ on the following subjects if they hang around long enough:
Chipped Crockery for raw fish lovers - A guide by David Farrant.
Pants or No Pants? - Hunting Vampire Spiders in specially prepared robes - by Lord Manchester.
Trespass and Me - A concise anthology of dickkypoggy hallowe'en ceremonies by B. Green.
One Clove short of a Bulb – Biography of Bishop Manchester by “Big Les.”
Coal Dust and Cobwebs, the Hutchinson years – Memoirs (extract), by A. Farrow
How to remove Cat Hairs and Detritus from soft furnishings – B. Green
Magic acts for Children, (Volumes 1-12) Manchester, S.P. and Pope, J.R.
Once a Pagan always a Pagan (Except when I’m Roman Catholic) - C. Fearnley.
Braising the Steaks – How to light fires in neo-Gothic mansions, Farrant & Pope.
How to Ad your Clerum and Eat it too – Kirsey, Linley Et Al.
Yes folks, all this and more in the amazing Manchester-Farrant Feud!
(Now celebrating its 38th year).
Hi anonym(post 9)... I can certainly see the addictive quality of this long going feud ;) Who might I ask are you? Are you a JREF-forum member perhaps?
Hi Clu,
No I'm, not a JREF forum member although I was impressed with what I saw. I'm a neutral bystander in all this, although if push came to shove I would support David as he is by far the nicer man to deal with. Less of a loony-tune too if you ask me.
Cheers,
VL.
Don't mistake obsequiousness for niceness. It was Farrant, after all, who made the headlines for threatening people with "death dolls."
He was interviewed on BBC Radio Four in 1973 about his Hallowe'en sacrifice of a cat which he did not deny. There was also an interview with a doctor's wife, Mrs Annette Wilson, who opposed Farrant's publicly stated intention of sacrificing a cat in an occult ceremony.
Moreover, the Hornsey Journal, 28 September 1973, who also interviewed Farrant, stated on their front page beneath its headline "I Sent Voodoo Dolls - 'High Priest' Farrant," that "Farrant, as the Journal reported, admitted slitting a 'stray' cat's throat at the height of a bizarre ritual before his coven of eight hooded men and a naked High Priestess in Highgate Woods recently."
The same newspaper also confirmed that Farrant "sensationally admitted to sending the dolls, with pins through their heads and accompanying poems, in a desperate 'leave me alone to continue my work' bid.
Inspector John Tressider of the RSPCA received his package direct and Mrs Wilson's 'gift' was sent to Journal reporter Roger Simpson for forwarding."
On the front page feature of the Hornsey Journal, 28 September 1973, it was reported: "Questioned about the enormous outcry against his work involving ritual slaughter, Farrant stressed that he would not halt sacrificing animals."
When Farrant was interviewed in the News of the World, 23 September 1973, by Sue Kentish, we discover: "He spoke matter of factly about a ceremony watched by 12 naked, chanting individuals during which he severed a cat's head with a dagger. All the participants then smeared themselves with blood before indulging in sex. 'I did not enjoy having to kill the cat, but for one particular part of the ritual it was necessary,' said Farrant. 'The sacrifice of a living creature represents the ultimate act in invoking a deity. I do not see animal sacrifice as drastic as people have made it out to be. Thousands of cats are used for medical research. The very livestock we eat have their throats cut. And, at least, I anaesthetised the cat before I had to kill it'. With a shrug of the shoulders he admitted mercislessly pursuing grievances."
When Farrant was interviewed in the Hornsey Journal, 31 August 1973, by Roger Simpson, we learn: "A cat was sacrificed to a horned god in a macabre night ritual at Highgate Woods during the weekend involving eight hooded coven members and a naked High Priestess who left at the scene a blood-stained carving knife, blood-splattered stockings and offal. ... A North London coven later claimed responsibility and the coven's High Priest, David Farrant, told the Journal in an interview at his Archway Road flat: 'Hundreds of years ago a naked virgin would have been sacrificed, but obviously we couldn't do this now so we had to have an animal for the important ritual.' The victim was a stray cat and Farrant stressed that the animal was anaesthetised for the 45 minutes ritual which culminated in the slitting of the cat's throat. The ritual slaughter was a part of the festival of the Black Moon - an important date in the witchcraft calendar."
A court report in the Hornsey Journal, 16 November 1979, under the headine, "Ritual sex act and cat sacrifice," revealed: "Self-styled 'high priest' David Farrant told a High Court jury this week of the night he performed a ritual sex act in an attempt to summon up a vampire in Highgate Cemetery. He also admitted that he had taken part in the 'sacrifice' of a stray cat in Highgate Wood."
When Seán Manchester first referred to these claims by Farrant, he said he believed them to be nothing more than publicity-seeking fantasies strictly for the media which were without any substance. He has since revised that view by saying he cannot be sure one way or another how far Farrant will go to achieve publicity.
What we do know is that Farrant made black magic threats to various people. He doesn't attempt to deny it and has sought on occasion to justify his actions.
But these are not the actions of a nice man.
Well ano/manchester/mythbuster(the copy-paste fella')... I haven't read all of your ramblings (I have more important things to do like picking my navel)... I still maintain that anyone believing that they have staked (oh sorry exorcised) a real vamp are loons complete and utter loons no matter their name... that includes the dear 'mr' Manchester and his nemesis (ooooh it's soooo like batman and the joker...) the good 'ol mr Farrant... Oh yes, I almost forgot, I find mr Farrant to be the nicer one by far...
Anyone care to join in with me for a chorus or two of "Monster Mash"?
Well I can't see why not...
.... what did you have in mind?
The one thing you obviously do not have in mind is dealing with the glaring anomalies and contradictions claimed by your supposedly "nice man" who went on vampire hunts with journalists in Highgate Cemetery over three and a half decades ago and stated how he would like to "stake the vampire" to them, but now says it did not happen. They apparently "made it all up." Funny how there are so many newspapers from that period with photographs of him wielding a sharp stake ans wearing a cross for protection. And what about him claiming in 2005 that the vampire he failed to stake is now back again?
You call yourself a "born again sceptic" and you contribute to the JREF forum, but when it is demonstrated that you are failing in your ambition to debunk all you can do is make infantile, unfunny noises.
You are clearly unable to deal seriously with anything beyond puerile banter and this has been something of a wastes exercise. Never mind. Others might take the trouble to check out the evidence already provided for themselves.
Please 'mr' ano.... I think both of these mr's are completely delusional why do you fail to grasp that? and I really have better things to do than to dwell on this issue with farrant, as he has made his position perfectly clear and that he has no evidence to back it up...
http://www.kirkleesmc.gov.uk/community/localorgs/orgdetails.asp?OrgID=3444
"Thirty years on the two--who are now both pensioners-- are still fighting their respective claims as to who led the vampire hunt." - "Greewych" (Barbara Green, Brighouse, West Yorkshire)
Ironically, Barbara Green ("Greenwych") is actually three months older than Farrant whom she supports with her copy and paste rubbish where fabrication from her mentally unstable mind is plentifully in evidence.
Neither David Farrant nor Seán Manchester have been feuding over "who led the vampire hunt." This is all in Green's mind, as is everything else posted by her in the manner of someone with an obsessive compulsive disorder.
Let's take a closer look at Barbara Green and the topic of vampires which so occupies her. This is what Green posted on the Dark Angel forum:
"I read that you were looking for a yorkshire vampire--look no further ! To find the yorkshire vampire at kirklees look up www.robinhoodyorkshire.co.uk"
http://www.thedarkangel.co.uk/guestbook/index.php?show_page=71&noform=1
And this is what Barbara Green wrote to her local newspaper about her so-called Yorkshire vampire:
"Like a bat she hung there for what seemed like an eternity, her black nun's robes flapping eerily while her eyes flashed red and venomous and her teeth bared sharp and white between snarling blood-red lips."
(Brighouse Echo, 12 November 1995)
Link (all one line) to self-information posted by Barbara Green ("Greenwych") on her local council's website:
www.kirkleesmc.gov.uk/
community/localorgs/
orgdetails.asp?OrgID=3444
Ok this is getting rediculous and if you dont stop I'll just have to moderate you away....
Both on you... that means removal of previuos comments aswell...
I didn't mean to say dont post if you have any good stuff to share just dont keep up the personal attacks and I'll be a happy camper (I believe that's the correct phrase) ;)
"I rally [sic] became actively involved in the esorteric [sic] Order towars [sic] the end of 1963, but my 'on the ground' research into the paranormal and physchic [sic] phenomena really began after the mid 1960's. [sic]" - David Farrant - 27th January 2007, 04:45 AM - http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=72719&page=2
So, if we take Farrant at his word, he is claiming to have been involved in an esoteric order at the age of sixteen/seventeen? And that he was involved in "on the ground" (as opposed to "up in the air") psychic research two years later while he was still a teenager?
That's if we accept his word. Personally, I don't.
It's certainly not how all those who knew him in the 1960s remember him.
My advice to anyone who wants to discover the truth (if they're really that interested) is to contact anyone (and I do mean ANYONE) who knew Farrant in the 1960s and ask them whether anything he now claims about his early life is true.
I've done so. And they all say what he is now claiming is a load of rubbish.
Before he met Tony Hutchinson and tried to cook up a fake "ghost story" for his local press in late 1969, which resulted in his infamous letter to the editor of the Ham & High (6 January 1970), Farrant had shown no interest in things esoteric, occult, psychic or paranormal. Hutchinson got him marginally interested in a disingenuous sort of way because it was all no more than a means to garner self-publicity in the media.
Ask anyone who knew Farrant at the time. His wife testified to the same effect under oath as a defence witness at the Old Bailey in 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.” (The Sun newspaper, 21 June 1974)
Hi MythBuster (Anon).
And what about him claiming in 2005 that the vampire he failed to stake is now back again?
Where has David ever said that the "Vampire" is back?
What really happened was that a Senior Researcher at the British Psychic and Occult Society (BPoS) called Patsy and her travelling companion experienced unexplained paranormal disturbances and feelings that suggested to them that the area was still "Haunted". No mention of "Vampires" was made. Patsy is a bona-fide spirit medium and also an accountant so she would know.
Some more book titles:
Too big for your breeches? Horse riding for the larger gentleman – S. P. Manchester
101 things to do with two twigs and a shoelace – Alan Farrow
A Pat on the head from his Nibs: My life as a servant to Lord Manchester – Dennis Crawford
Modelling Gloves & Shoes - Katrina Garforth-Bles
My life in Tights (Confessions of a modern day Maid Marion) – Barbara Green
How’s your Father? (Tips for girls with older lovers) – C. Fearnley
Two Hairs and a Nit: Making the most of male pattern baldness – S.P. Manchester.
The Bandwagoneer – D. Farrant
Romantic Milk Rounds of North London – Lord Manchester.
Sniffing the Ink (The secret life of a Gothic Press Printer) – Brother Keith McLean.
Enjoy.
"Where has David ever said that the 'Vampire' is back?" - Barbara Green (wych)
"Farrant said: 'The sighting of a tall, black figure in April [2005] on Swains Lane makes me think the vampire is active again. On my visit, I saw the bricked-up vault, which some occultists say is inhabited by the vampire. I am not really welcomed at the cemetery'."
http://www.pentaclemagazine.org/pn760/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1551
Go to the above link where Farrant is quoted directly from the interview he gave Marc Mullen for the Ham & High (a north London newspaper). Also, check the original interview itself by going to the Ham & High.
One thing about which the original investigators are absolutely certain is that no authentic reports of supernatural disturbances have taken place at Highgate Cemetery for three and a half decades.
Researchers living in the vicinity of Highgate Cemetery know of no recent sighting from any credible witness. Farrant has produced none apart from his lackey Patsy Langely of Feltham, Middlesex, who claims to be a medium, spiritualist and practitioner of witchcraft.
This amazingly gullible woman would say anything to garner favour with Farrant. She is the moderator of his main message board, using the pseudonym "soprano" (having previously been "songstress").
Her vocal chords are out of tune with the facts, however, when it comes to Highgate which causes her to have delusional sightings and supernatural experiences each and every time she visits in the company of David Farrant.
Farrant, aided by self-styled medium Langley, has been attempting since 2005 to manufacture a new scare that the vampire is active again in the cemetery.
Yet no scrap of evidence is provided. No (independent of Farrant) witnesses have been identified. No testimony can be checked. Not one person has independently come forward to verify such a claim which remains the fodder of newspaper hacks who have been fed this latter-day attempt to jump on the bandwagon of the Highgate Vampire case by the same man who tried to exploit it for his own self-aggrandisement thirty-seven years ago.
Some people might find it difficult to believe that these infantile posts from Barbara Green (the Bully of Brighouse) aka "Greenwych" are from an old age pensioner in her sixty-second year and not from a six-year-old child.
As for being just a "housewife" and not a "hunter" of supernatural shades that go bump in the night, this is what Green posted on her own message board on 23 April 2005 @ 08:42:
"Blessing Robin Hood’s Grave--the FACTS. Just to give further details on the situation at Robin Hoods Grave. The exorcism and blessing which took place on April 20th 2005 was the result of many years of work by the Yorkshire Robin Hood Society. It should be made clear that the YRHS have, since 1985, sought permission to help with the restoration and promotion of Robin’s grave, as well as the ruined gatehouse of Kirklees Priory where the famous outlaw was bled to death by the prioress in 1347. All attempts to coincide with the landowner were refused, as were requests for the society to do historical research, and, later, when the paranormal reports became widespread, to have a Church blessing conducted by the Church of England Vicar, the Reverend John Flack, now a Bishop. It was due to these negative reactions that the first 'exorcism' was conducted by Evelyn Friend, a psychic from Otley, who , in the late 1980s ,blessed the four points of the ley lines which intersect Kirklees--Castle Hill at Huddersfield, Hartshead Church, Alegar Holy Well at Brighouse and the Nunbrook by the Three Nuns Inn. The second 'exorcism' was undertaken by Sean Manchester, who suspected that the problem might be a vampire, and took place in 1990, without conclusive results. Now the famous outlaw’s grave has at long last received an on-site ritual exorcism, undertaken at great personal risk by those involved. Their actions should be applauded by anyone who cares about the Robin Hood legend. For over twenty years the YRHS have expressed their concern about both the neglect of the site, and the continued lack of recognition of this site as a place of national importance. On top of this were the concerns about the restless spirits seen around the place, and the need for some proper spiritual intervention to be made. The Church of England simply weren’t up to it, and fell at the first hurdle, sad to say, and it was left to another religion to actually put themselves in the firing line--quite literally ! Exorcisms are dangerous rituals, only to be attempted by those with the right qualifications ! The other more physical dangers surrounding the location of the grave should not be overlooked either, not least being gun-toting gamekeepers ! Though having said this, one of the group had permission to visit the site, and after all, she could not be expected to go to such a lonely place on her own to conduct the service !"
http://groups.msn.com/bossybishopsandnaughtynuns/general.msnw?action=get_message&mview=1&ID_Message=610
I would be interested to discover what "qualifications" Farrant and Medway possess for attempting an exorcism. It sounds more like bandwagoneering and publicity-seeking to me, especially as Green made sure that photographs of the "ritual" went to the Brighouse Echo who were only to willing to publish details of this daft stunt.
Incidentally, Seán Manchester did not go to the site in 1990 to conduct an exorcism. It was a vigil.
Green actually believes that Robin Hood is not only a real person but is still wandering her local neighbourhood as a ghost!
She has been obsessing about a Victorian folly on private land which she claims stands over the bones of Robin Hood and is thereby haunted by him.
What utter tosh!
"Anyway I am only 61 and you are older than me and not half as beautiful! by the way none of your wild allegations against me are true, they a re all sexed up lurid reconstructions ..." - The Brighouse Bully ("Greenwych")
You are nevertheless in your sixty-second year. You were sixty-one last year and you will be sixty-two this year. As for "sexed up lurid reconstructions," I have used your own words copied from your own board. Elsewhere I have quoted your blogs on other people's boards and your comments in your local newspaper. You are condemned by your words, Green. As for being "beautiful"!!!! Now your eyesight is going! I could never be as old as you, Green. You are the archetypal crone.
"Oh, its a crime now, to be 60 +? I call you an agists and sexist prig!You havent seen any pictures of me anyway so you dont know how beautiful, or otherwise , I am, and as for taking whats said in newspapers as the truth, dont make me laugh!" - Brighouse Bully ("Greenwych")
I have seen a great many photographs of you, Green, which you have uploaded over the years onto your various boards, and, of course, it's not a crime to be over sixty. But it was YOU, Green, who introduced this topic and made it an issue, eg "Thirty years on the two--who are now both pensioners-- are still fighting their respective claims as to who led the vampire hunt." (January 27, 2007 11:37 PM) If you can't take it, don't dish it out!
For Barbara Green ("Greenwych"):
Please specify which newspaper report is in error and whether you have done anything to have it corrected. And, if not, why have you done nothing to have it corrected? If you have done so, where can I find the correction?
Also, which of the quotes from your own and other people's boards are incorrect and, given that you posted these statements yourself, why are you now saying they're erroneous?
In other words, what do you now reject that has been attributed to you in quotes or posted by you in person on public record?
Hi,
"Nice" Anonymous posting this:
Barbara looks a damn sight better for her age than a certain "Bishop" I could mention! In a recent photo I've seen he looks like a tramp wearing some old tea pot cosey that he found in a nearby skip! In another picture he looks morbidly obese and as puffy as old buggery. No wonder nearly all the photos on his MSN boards are ancient, the poor sod looks like he is about to croak it.
Barbara, you look stunning as always.
Love from V.
How very charming and feminine these females are ... NOT. Heaven help anyone who has to have personal contact with any of them!
The fact that Barbara Green is unable to address straightforward questions is, I suppose, an answer in itself.
She has not only been quoted, of course, in newspapers. Her photograph has also appeared to support stories where she is quoted.
The occult ceremony at "Robin Hood's" so-called grave with Farrant and Medway being a fairly recent example. Green can be seen in the accompanying picture of the ritual over the tomb at night in her local newspaper (the Brighouse Echo).
Was she misquoted? Did they superimpose her onto the photograph? Was she not really present during the publicity stunt and indeed took part in it?
Which other newspaper reports does she claim to be in error? Also, which of her quotes from her own and other people's boards is she now claiming to be "sexed up" and incorrect?
In other words, what does Barbara Green now reject that has been attributed to her in quotes or posted by her in person on public forums?
I would like to know what eaxctly she considers to be a "sexed up lurid reconstruction"? And what she considers to be accurate?
They are a bit like Jekyll and Hyde our two anonymous commentators. How very sad. As you say Greenwych, it's a pity that they have nothing better to do. But still they are at least providing better entertainment for us then Celebrity Big Brother. I wonder if Manchester would like to be a contender and wonder if he would win??????
Hello Annonymous,
Thanks for that. I'm really shocked about this. Maybe this would be too bad to put on Big Brother, perhaps Jerry Springer would like it instead!!!!!
The photo of Mannie with Basil Hume is such a crock of shit.
The truth behind the story, is that Sean and his friend with the camera, gatecrashed a private conversation Basil was having with an associate.
Sean made it seem as if he were part of it and the picture was taken.
There's another photo that proves he had fuck all to do with it and I'd be more than happy to post it, but the old pikey will end up bitching about copyright theft, but I'll describe it for you.
Bas is having a convo with said friend, Sean is also in the picture and trying to make it seem as if he is following Basil's line of sight - He's not.
Sean is clearly seen looking further into the camera than Basil and on a completely different level of depth.
If anything, it looks much like a photo of someone who has just walked into shot, onblivious of his surroundings.
The 'letter' Sean brags about, was a formality that was sent out to religious groups, cults & sects.
Even Sean's group which has been linked to Paedophiles (The Old English Catholic Church) was selected for inclusion as the original lineage was recognised if only, for being a fucking pain in the arse.
Sean, one more thing, you pie munching chubster of a liar.
You know you said you killed Lusia...well that's a lie isn't it.
After all, Lusia was actually Jaqueline Cooper, the woman you was living with.
In fact, she was named by your ex wife on the divorce papers as being the reason why Mari divorced you.
I have a copy of said divorce paper in case anyone is interested.
Oh, and Jaqueline was using your surname at the time as well.
...so how exactly did you manage to kill your common law wife in a graveyard under the belief that she was a Vampire spider....AND GET AWAY WITH IT?
You didn't.
It was another lie you scrofulitic palsied halwit.
GOOD PEOPLE, JUDGE FOR YOURSELVES.
For some years Mr. Patrick Sean Manchester, a self-styled ‘bishop’ in the Old Catholic Church, has been attacking David Farrant, President of the British Psychic and Occult Society, on the Internet by hiding behind various names and aliases. Ones he most frequently uses are The Vampire Research Society or The Cross and the Stake; he invariably writes all of these postings himself, but, if challenged, pretends these were written without his prior knowledge or consent.
What sheer and unadulterated nonsense! Manchester is, in reality, an absolute coward who hides behinds the names of fictitious organisations or people and then tries to pretend that his numerous malicious postings have nothing to do with himself! Such hypocrites must be scarce; but they certainly exist as the embodiment of one Mr. Patrick Sean Manchester, a self-styled ‘bishop’ who is not even recognised by any independent Church - Old Catholic Church included.
David Farrant, has in his possession, many secret tape recordings he had with Mr. Patrick Sean Manchester - before he was pretending to have been ‘ordained’. In many of these, he can be heard using foul language and ridiculing the very Christian ideals he now claims to uphold. In one such tape (recorded in 1981). Manchester can be heard relating how he entered a Christian burial ground and ‘stole human remains’ to further him in some secular project. He was assisted by the late Spike Milligan who, in turn, was duped by Manchester’s protestations at the time. The following transcript is completely authentic (as with many others) and Manchester was recorded as follows . . .
THE SEANGATE TAPES
(OR, THE SECRET SEAN MANCHESTER TAPES)
SEAN MANCHESTER: If you do hear anything, let us know, won't you? I'm really tied up at the moment, I'm doing a project with Spike Milligan at the moment, to save some trees.
DAVID FARRANT: Where's he live, still up near Highgate, or Finchley?
SM: No. Not Holden Road; he left there in the early seventies, He lives at Monkenhurst. It's a Victorian palace, like a church, it's all stained glass windows and turrets. It's in the crescent opposite Hadley Woods. He's got a fantastic place. Spike and I have formed a campaign in the area, 'cause we live very close, to protect the trees, as the property's just been sold, and also to protect some unlisted monuments. And also we've found that in the eighteenth century there's some bones of some bodies under there, although it's not marked, and that they have to have an Act of Parliament, you see ... we're trying to prove that there's bones ... Don't you ever say anything, I don't want it to be thought that Sean Manchester's involved in the subject, but you know what Spike and I done? We dug up some bones, human bones, and we buried them, and we stuck them under there, in this area which we don't want to be developed. And if they find them ... you see, if when they do a survey, and they find these bones, human bones there, they have to bring in an Act of Parliament to develop the area, and therefore they won't be able to chop all the trees down.
DF: Well, where the hell did you get the bones from?
SM: From a cemetery.
DF: You're kidding?
SM: No, there's a little one ... there's an old dilapidated one nearby …
DF: Not Monken Hadley?
SM: No, no, that is the nearest one, but there's another one, in St Alban's Road. We just put a few human bones, just enough to stop them from being able to develop. But don't you ever say anything. It was Spike's idea ... Spike doesn't care about old bones, he just wants to save the trees ... He doesn't give a monkey's ... he says the trees and the animals are more important 'cause they're living ... we've got other things planned as well, we are actually going to chain ourselves to the trees, if they ever come to chop them down ... You'll probably be hearing more about it, because in about two weeks, we will be doing a television interview to talk about it, and we're also going down to Downing Street with a massive petition ...
DF: Is it just you and him, or are there other people involved?
SM: Him and I have created the actual committee, but there's lots of people involved, film stars, all sorts of people have come in on the act, Sidney Chapman, the MP for Chipping Barnet, but we're the protagonists, we actually started the campaign.
DF: But what sort of bones were they? Was it a skull, or just a fingerbone, or what? Not a great big leg bone?
SM: No, I think one was an armbone, and a collarbone, that kind of thing, whatever we could get hold of.
DF: How deep was it?
SM: Well we buried it reasonably deeply, in an area where ... 'cause he knows more about the ground than I do ... where it would make sense, where it's reasonable to assume it would have been there at that time.
DF: How do you know it's going to be discovered?
SM: Oh, because they're surveying the area, to develop on it, and they're going to have to do tests, you see, and even if they did miss it, a bulldozer will turn it up. And even if they miss that, they'll find it one way or the other, because we'll send the press along. And while they're there, we'll say, Oh, what's that? There's no way it will be missed. But we can prove in any case that it used to be an ancient burial site, because in the eighteenth century we know that it was a burial site, and they might even find some in any case. See, it's a woodland...
DF: Is it near his house?
SM: Well, it's not too far away ... It's been brought through an agent by a property company ... see what the worry is, all that green's going to go, and they'll build really rich posh places on it, and we don't want that; sod, these ... a couple of Arabs and a Jew and a Greek living there.
DF: I just can't imagine you walking along the street with human bones! ...
SM: He'd do anything to save a tree. Crikey! I remember when he was living in Holden Road and I was going out with his daughter, Sheila ...
To be continued ...
Signed The Slightly Anonymous One!
Or put another way . . .
The "Less Than Slightly Anonymous One!"
Over to you Mr. Manchester . . . Sorry, I mean 'Mr. Anonymous'!
Hang on a minute. The person or persons posting all this abuse about someone called Manchester is also "Anonymous" and obviously too afraid to come out of his/her/their closet for fear of the consequences.
Anyone can post defamtory allegations when hidden and anonymous. Why doesn't this person or persons have the courage of their conviction and announce who they are?
It's just not going to happen, is it? So their allegations are completely worthless as they are never going to be tested in the only way these things can be tested.
The burden of proof rests with the libeller and the identity of a libeller needs to be known to be put to the test.
Hence him/her/them skulking in hiding where they will doubtless remain for the duration.
Given you have no connection to this man, his friends or family, who does it concern you to so much?
It is apparent from the various sites where your name crops up that this is an obsession which occupies every day of your life.
Is your life so dull that you have nothing better to occupy it than constantly repeating yourself about someone you do not know and who almost certainly couldn't care less even if he knew what you were doing?
For heaven's sake, get a life!
So Farrant's cronies are still unwisely dredging up the notorious Sunday People article of 1977 which falsely claimed that the existence of a Neo-Nazi cell in north London was "phoney." Ironically, within a short space of time after that article's publication a fire-bombing campaign on north London synagogues was carried out by the very organisation claimed to be "phoney."
Sean Manchester has already made his own position quite clear. He has no interest in party politics and has at no time in his life been a member of any political party. False allegations to the effect that he has been a National Front member and canvassed for them stem exclusively from David Farrant; the same David Farrant who attempted to stand as a WWP candidate in the 1978 British General Election; the same David Farrant who recommended that any potential voters should switch to the NF when he stood down; the same David Farrant who has sought and received support from Nazi-minded individuals with far right associations to attack Sean Manchester.
In the 70s and 80s Sean Manchester was the North London Regional Co-ordinator for the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) and an active member of Pax Christi. His peace campaigning was supported by eminent figures such as Lord Fenner Brockway and often resulted in media coverage. When Sean Manchester led a "Fast for Peace" over Christmas and was joined by the elderly Lord Brockway and other peace campaigners, thugs, believed to be NF members, attacked those fasting. This was reported by local newspapers at the time.
Six months after publication of the Frank Thorne's "spoiler" article in 1977, it was time for rewarding Farrant with some promised publicity. Frank Thorne accompanied David Farrant on a train journey to Grimsby where Farrant was photographed with "fiancée" Nancy O'Hoski outside a church for a half-page feature about their proposed wedding. Published in the Sunday People, 16 April 1978, Thorne's article opens with the following words:
"Self-styled witch king David Farrant - the man jailed for desecrating a tomb and threatening detectives with voodoo - has a new shock in store. What's more, Britain's best-known Prince of Darkness is dreaming of a traditional white wedding."
The article quoted Farrant as saying; "I want to put my ghoulish past behind me now. . Either I give up witchcraft or Nancy."
Soon after the story was printed, Farrant gave up Nancy O'Hoski, a speech therapist (Farrant suffers from a nervous stammer). They did not get married. Then came a very curious turn of events. Farrant, within days of the publicity generated by his abandoned wedding plans in the Sunday People, prepared to stand as a candidate in the forthcoming British General Election. He 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, that thundered:
"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. Mr Farrant, who lives in Muswell Hill Road, is fighting under the slogan 'Wiccans Awake'."
David 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."
Nowadays Frank Thorne is unemployed and resides in Sydney, Australia, having lost his wife, family and job in the UK due to alcoholism.
Farrant's close associate since 1973 on whose behalf he threatened police witnesses, John Pope, continued with his Neo-Nazi connections, and more recently published a piece in the journal of the south-western branch of the National Front, an organisation with overtly Neo-Nazi views. He has belonged to survivalist groups and maintained contact with some of the most extreme movements to have existed on the far right.
David Farrant has a history of association with people with Neo-Nazi ideology. He connects, for example, to names such as Philippe Welte and Jean-Paul Bourre, two Frenchman who greatly admired Hitler at the time when Farrant was in collaboration with them during the 1980s. Farrant's slim self-published booklet "Beyond the Highgate Vampire" includes a photograph of Jean-Paul Bourre whom Farrant describes in the caption beneath as "a leading Satanist attempting to invoke the Devil." What Farrant fails to mention is his close friendship and collaboration over many years with Bourre. And there are others with whom Farrant has been associated who have NF connections. For example, the extremely violent Kenneth Frewen, a National Front supporter, acted as Farrant's "minder" during the 1970s and 1980s.
As already stated, John Pope, a Farrant collaborating associate since 1973, has a long history of Neo-Nazi involvement. He has even forwarded articles to the NF in relatively recent times, eg "Dr. John Pope De Locksley ... has produced three cyclostyled pieces on the Ripper, all seriously marred by habitual extreme inaccuracy and inconsistency, and atrocious spelling and grammar ... Under the pseudonym Dr. J. Macata he published a piece in the journal of the South-western branch of the National Front, arguing that [Michael] Ostrog was the Ripper". http://vampiresuk.mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/jakr2.htm
Frank Thorne's sensationalist piece (known as a "spoiler" in the business) in the Sunday People, 9 October 1977 was based exclusively on that newspaper reporter's collaboration with David Farrant who, of course, then as now is violently antipathetic toward Sean Manchester. He had not long been released from prison when his collusion with Thorne took place.
The Sunday People article came about when Sean Manchester refused to collude with Frank Thorne on an investigative piece he had begun to have published as a commission with the Times Group Newspapers who published the Borehamwood Post, Finchley Times and Hendon Times etc. This resulted in Thorne harassing Manchester's parents on the doorstep of their Islington home. The journalist was asked to desist on the grounds that Manchester's parents were not involved, nor responsible for any story Thorne might be looking to spoil, and that one of them, Manchester's father, was suffering with a heart condition. Thorne ignored such pleas and Manchester was obliged to meet the journalist, albeit briefly, at the offices of the Sunday People on 5 October 1977 in order to prevent any further harassment of his parents. This meeting confirmed Manchester's worst fears when it became apparent that Thorne, who suffered from a serious alcohol problem which eventually cost him his job, was consulting David Farrant who was willing to go along with anything the newspaper suggested in order to cause maximum damage.
Frank Thorne had decided the direction his piece on Sean Manchester's original work was heading after hearing from Farrant, and four days later published his "spoiler," as it is known in the print media, against the Times Group's exclusive series already in progress under Manchester's byline. In this "spoiler" - titled "We Unmask Phoney Nazis" - Thorne attributed quotes to three people. They all later denied making them and all issued complaints.
Complaints against Frank Thorne and the Sunday People were filed with Mirror Group Newspapers Ltd by Sean Manchester, Mike Clarke and John Russell Pope. A complaint was also lodged with the Press Council against Frank Thorne
and the Sunday People.
A statement was witnessed and signed by John Russell Pope in pursuit of his complaint against the Sunday People. A copy was also included among the documents lodged with the Press Council by Sean Manchester in his case against Thorne. Pope's testimony was added to illustrate that someone who was unsupportive of Sean Manchester would nonetheless not allow himself to be bullied by Thorne. It is understood that the following statement transcribed from his original taped recollection was made at the insistence of Pope's father, Fred Pope, who resented his son's treatment by the newspaper.
"On the evening of 6 October 1977, two men called at my home at [address deleted], Barnet, Hertfordshire, and without identifying themselves demanded to see me. My father thought they were police detectives by their manner. When invited to come inside, they refused and insisted that I accompany them to a nearby car. That is when they first revealed themselves to be working for the Sunday People. One, calling himself Frank Thorne, tried to make me say that a photograph of a man in a Nazi uniform was Seán Manchester. They showed me a copy of the Borehamwood Post and tried to make me say that the article called 'The New Nazis' was false. But they would not let me read any of the article and did not refer specifically to the 'League of Imperial Fascists.' They told me that I would be guaranteed future mention in their newspaper if I co-operated, but I was not prepared to let them use me in this way. The following evening I telephoned the Sunday People and asked to speak to the News Editor. I complained to him about his reporters' methods, especially Frank Thorne, and reminded him that I belonged to a survivalist group that had political connections, further about which I did not wish to elaborate. I did not seem to get any satisfactory replies, so I spoke to him again on the telephone on Saturday morning, 8 October 1977, by which time I had been told by Seán Manchester what Frank Thorne had alleged I said on Thursday evening, which I knew to be false. I did not identify any person in the photographs shown to me."
A statement (ref; CFW/SP/P6282/6/3/78) issued by Mike Clarke, editor of the Borehamwood Post, was noted by the Press Council. This greatly respected newspaper editor denied all the remarks attributed to him by Frank Thorne in the Sunday People article of 9 October 1977. He underlined the fact that he had most definitely not said the words, nor anything similar, to the effect of "I'm afraid I'm left with egg on my face. I shall be taking legal advice."
The complaint lodged by Sean Manchester with the Press Council was as follows:
"The Sunday People newspaper concocted an inaccurate article about me which they did not correct when presented with Mr John Pope's statement and other evidence which showed none of Frank Thorne's allegations against me to be true. Photographs belonging to me were used in an article without my permission. I was, however, promptly paid a sum of money for their use, which, unwisely, I accepted as compensation for what amounted to copyright theft. From the start I had made clear to Frank Thorne that I had no wish to 'collaborate' on the Nazi story as (a) it was my work, and (b) the Sunday People's 'treatment' of my work, as proposed by Frank Thorne to me, was one I found to be unacceptable. Frank Thorne then threatened to use my material with or without my permission. None of the quotes attributed to me are true. I did not state to Frank Thorne that the 'Nazi recruiting picture of John Pope' was 'faked.' I did identify the person in the picture [of the 'Commander']. This was ignored by Frank Thorne."
A compelling piece of evidence presented to the Press Council was Thorne's reliance on collusion with David Farrant.
Nobody else was willing to "identify" the Nazi Commander in the stolen photograph. For legal reasons Thorne fraudulently added Pope's name to the identification, but Pope absolutely denied making any such identification as his signed statement of 9 December 1977 attests. Furthermore, Pope, off the record, claimed that he had been "roughed up" by Thorne and the accompanying journalist when they took him away from his home for interrogation in their car.
Incredibly, Farrant, who is extremely antipathetic toward Manchester, agreed to make a statement (probably seeing its enormous publicity potential) which he duly signed on 2 January 1978. The statement was lodged with the Press Council by Sean Manchester. Farrant's statement follows:
"I received a 'phone call from Trevor Aspenal of the Sunday People who enquired about my relationship with Seán Manchester and the British Occult Society. I told him there was no change and that we were still strongly opposed to each other. I then spoke to Frank Thorne of the same newspaper who asked me if I could identify Seán Manchester in a picture. I told him that I would be able to. He then arranged for me to attend the Sunday People's offices where I was shown a photograph of someone in a Nazi uniform. He then showed me a number of other photographs of men and women in Nazi uniforms. I identified one of the men as John Pope. I agreed with Frank Thorne that the original picture shown to me could have been Seán Manchester."
The payment as compensation by the Sunday People to Sean Manchester for pictures infringed by them without his permission technically placed the complainant in a contractual relationship with the newspaper, thus contravening paragraph 4 of the Press Council's guidelines. The Press Council, therefore, were unable to process the complaint, but nonetheless acknowledged in writing that Sean Manchester, Mike Clarke and John Pope had disavowed the quotes attributed to them by Frank Thorne in the Sunday People article.
This is for "Anonymous" who posts using bold letters to make himself more noticed (a sure sign of insecurity).
Does he imagine that the Roman Catholic Church, Anglican Church and Orthodox Churches don't have any paedophile clergy? They've more than their fair share! Hence the massive scandals in recent times. Yet is it at all likely that the church Sean Manchester leads contains sexual deviants and perverts? Hardly when you consider that his church website was disabled in June 2002 because it named and shamed paedophile priests. Complaints were made by paedophile clergy along with David Farrant with whom they were in contact to orchestrate enough complaints to have the site disabled.
It is clear to anyone who has done their homework that Sean Manchester is someone who takes a very strong position AGAINST every sort of sexual perversion. He is attacked by liberal clergy outside his jursidiction due to his traditionalist stance on homosexuality where he upholds scriptural prohibition. His view on paedophiles is that they should be locked up and never released.
Now take David Farrant (born 23 January 1946), John Pope (born 11 July 1953) and [a Roman Catholic priest whose name has been deleted]. These three people knew and supported each other to attack Sean Manchester.
Farrant, let us remember, has an indecency conviction, Pope has a sexual assault conviction and [name deleted]'s websites have been shut down for containing lewd images of very young persons. The individual who complained about the obscene content on [name deleted]'s websites is none other than Seán Manchester. [Name deleted] is a defrocked Roman Catholic priest with a strong interest in Tantricism, Occultism and Freemasonry.
Together with Farrant and a paedophile, John Simmons, he complained to Sean Manchester's ISP and succeeded in closing down his church website on 21 June 2002. It named and shamed known paedophiles such as Simmons. It also contained information about the dangers, medical and moral, of homosexual lifestyles. Due to the intervention of Farrant and his perverted friends these webpages remain disabled.
Sean Manchester has been a strong voice against perversion, both within and outside the church. He supports "Sarah's Law" and has come under attack from sexual deviants and paedophiles because of his outspoken views. The hatred against Manchester has often been fuelled by Farrant who was sentenced to two years imprisonment in June 1974 for threatening witnesses in Pope's indecent sexual assualt case. Pope was nonetheless found guilty of molesting a young boy. Their mutual friend, [name deleted], also has an interest in children. Inappropriate images of young people filled his websites until Sean Manchester brought complaints and had them removed. Half a dozen sites belonging to [name deleted] have been disabled.
There are any number of bogus “priests,” “bishops” and “archbishops” in all denominations who fraudulently lay claim to taking and holding Holy Orders. The various Old Catholic Churches are no exception, having suffered their share. Thus the obligation is placed on those in legitimate Orders to expose these revellers in deception who invariably abuse their false claims further with despicable acts of wrongdoing and perversion. But to accuse ALL clergy within (or claiming to be within) the Old Catholic movement of perversion is no different to accusing all Roman Catholic (and any other denomination's) clergy of being paedophiles because of the appalling revelations about paedophile priests within the Roman Catholic fold over recent years. One is one too many, of course, but it is wrong to label everyone as being the same as a tiny minority of evil interlopers. Worse still, it is a travesty to attack a stalwart opponent of sodomites and paedophiles on the say-so of a man who surrounds himself with these perverts. Yet this is precisely what Ian Gomeche (born 10 February 1952) did on Combat 18's Nazi message board, having been duped into believing what Farrant told him about Sean Manchester. Stolen images of Sean Manchester in his vestments plus libel provided solely by Farrant still remain in that Neo-Nazi archive.
Accusing totally innocent persons of being "nonces," as apparently happened with sickening regularity where Gomeche is concerned, devalues the currency of "Sarah's Law" and works totally in favour of the real perverts.
Perhaps we should go back to the beginning? Sean Manchester was requested to appear as a professional witness for the Crown in November 1972 as an expert in a case of dubious necromancy that had taken place in a churchyard on the previous Hallowe'en. The defendant, David Farrant, was found guilty of indecent behaviour despite the fact that the bishop's testimony was not required. Thereafter a malicious vendetta has been executed by Farrant. It still continues to this day. Let us look a little closer at Farrant.
David Robert Donovan Farrant at first appears quietly spoken and inoffensive, but is later found to be someone you really wish you had not come to know. So many people have made this observation. However, Farrant's spurious "charm" cuts no ice with most people. The emphasis, we feel, is on the word "appears." He might at first "appear" to be all sorts of things. Examination reveals him to be something quite different.
My own view is that Farrant is an interloping charlatan and bandwagoneer who seeks attention for its own sake. He is someone who does not actually believe in any of the claims he makes and is an inveterate and compulsive liar. This is also the view of magistrates, judges and juries when all the available evidence was put before them at the time.
Hence in November 1972 (Barnet Magistrates’ Court) he was convicted of indecency in Monken Hadley churchyard. In June 1974 (Central Criminal Court, London) he was convicted of 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 close friend, John Pope, was subsequently found guilty of indecent sexual assault on a young boy; theft of items from Barnet Hospital where Farrant worked briefly as a porter in late 1970; possession of a handgun and ammunition kept at Farrant's address, which also contained a black magic altar beneath a massive mural of a face of the Devil that had featured in various newspapers, not least full front page coverage of the Hornsey Journal, 28 September 1973.
Farrant was arrested in early 1974 and held on remand until his trials at the Old Bailey in June 1974. He received a prison sentence of four years and eight months. He was released on parole in the autumn of 1976.
Farrant's friend since the 1960s is Nava Grunberg (similar age to Farrant) who lives in Hampstead Lane close to Highgate Cemetery. She has known him since their early teens and took care of his possessions while he was inside prison. Grunberg was married and has two children. Now divorced, the children remain with her. Grunberg told a girlfriend that another male friend of hers was abusing her son. The girlfriend immediately reported the abuse to Social Services and the police in 1997. Social Services were prevented from examining the boy by Grunberg who would not make a statement to them, even though her son had been abused from the ages seven until nine. She prevented any kind of investigation taking place, permitting the paedophile into her home until the relationship she had with him reached its conclusion.
Farrant and his current girlfriend (born 17 February 1973) spend a lot of time on the internet posting libel about Sean Manchester. One of their favourite ploys is to falsely claim that Sean Manchester once held membership in and canvassed for the National Front in the 1970s. Like all the rest of the fabrications circulated by them, no evidence whatsoever is offered to support their malicious allegation. Folk are just expected to accept Farrant's word for it.
Even the Anti Nazi League have received this sort of misinformation from Farrant and his associates, resulting in Sean Manchester being met by them at certain venues. On one such occasion, following a live chat show, the Manchester was obliged to confront a group of ANL members in the BBC canteen at Wood Lane. They were easy to identify because they were all wearing white ANL T-shirts and had been heckling Sean Manchester whenever he spoke. It was discovered that they had received the NF smears about Manchester from Farrant.
Now why did that come as no surprise?
I see that Mr. Manchester is upto his old tricks again. Well hopefully not for much longer. This blog is being saved and will be sent to the relevant people concerned.
Oh and seeing as Mr. Manchester was born on the 14th June/July 1946 whichever month it was is really irrelevant, after his immaculate conception is the same age if not slightly older then both Barbara Green and David Farrant and really should know better. At least we don't go around parading as a 'bishop' in fancy dress and claimed to have staked two vampires in the process.
THE SEANGATE TAPES
(Tales from the Crypt)
DAVID FARRANT: Oh, just tell me, just for my own benefit, because obviously I'm not going to use this, that [referring to a picture of Anthony Arthur 'Eggmanne' Hill in the catacombs of a cemetery] was taken in Kensal Rise Cemetery...
SEAN MANCHESTER: Kensal Green, in the catacombs.
DF: What was he actually doing? Who was he with, Welch?
SM: No.
DF: No, what I'm trying to get down to, is was that a real skeleton?
SM: Yes, absolutely.
DF: In that case, how would it stand up?
SM: It was made to do that.
DF: But it would fall over, wouldn't it?
SM: No, actually there was somebody, you can't see in that picture, but on the other side there is somebody holding it, being very careful, it was absolutely covered in dust and cobwebs and that, and somebody propping it, what in fact they'd done is ... see, it's very difficult, if you've never been down to Kensal Green catacombs, I don't want to get you to go down there ...
DF: I'm not going to. Don't worry.
SM: Anyway, at that time, I don't know if it's the same now, but I think it must be, because I know someone who went down there very recently, a female, for photographic purposes. I'll say nothing beyond that. But as recently as within the last year, a female went down to photograph these very same pictures, and she got a similar picture to that one of Arthur ... See, what you can do is, a lot of the coffins are just completely lying around, they're on shelves, some of them are tilting already, and some of the skeletons, it's almost incredible, what you can do is, you can kind of tilt the coffin up, and you can sort of hold the best part, they're like lumps of ... how they hold together, is, it's difficult, it's like rot, it's all rotten, everything down there is dripping and damp, and ...
DF: Is it easy to get into?
SM: It is if you know how. It is relatively easy. It isn't for the public, becuse, the public entrance is ... like, there's a grate on the ground, you lift the grate up on the ground, and you go down these stone steps, and then there's a door, and that's how you used to go in, and it's riddled, like honeycombed.
DF: You don't seriously think I'd go anywhere near it, after the Highgate troubles?
SM: No, no. But that door now, they've put a spike in the ground, so you can't bring the door forward. But there is another entrance that I know about, and obviously others, Eggman knows about it. It's in the chapel, behind the altar, there's a curtain, and behind that there is a door, and there's a lock on this side, so that people in the catacombs can't get out that way, but if you go in that way, you go behind the altar, and you move the curtain, you unlock that door, and you go down the stone stairs, and at the bottom there's another door, you open that door, and you're right in the middle ...
DF: But what was he actually doing in there, seriously? I mean, it is true, I know he's involved in all that.
SM: It's difficult to say what the fascination was. I really don't know, other than a morbid attraction. But in those days, you've got to remember it was pre-publicity, really, and he had no real bother about having pictures taken of that kind. But, I mean, now, crikey! ...
DF: But he'll never know how I've come into possession of it ...
DF: It's such a nice day, are you walking through the woods?
'Cause I've got to get something from Highgate.
SM: And you want to make it while it lasts, it's not going to last long, is it? ...
The Less Than Slightly Anonymous One! If you want any 'clues', then just read the conversation again.
Just for the record:
1) Manchester was an active member of the National Front Party and canvassed for the 'Rev' Brian Green (Local Office in Hornsey Road, North London N7) leading up to the 1970 General Election.
2) He had a morbid interest in illegally entering crypts in North London cemeteries in the late 1960's/through the 70 's and photographing corpses in vandalised coffins. [read above].
3) In 1969 - 1972 he was living with a girl called Jacqueline Cooper who he constantly photographed in Highgate Cemetery at the time posing outside various vaults. In his book, Manchester refers to her as 'Lusia' and goes on to state (in the text) that he 'staked her' after she had changed into a 'giant spider'!
Unimpressed by all this behaviour, his first wife divorced him citing Jacqueline on the Divorce Certificate (which was granted) for adultery. Manchester had two children by his first marriage, but he has since untruthfully claimed that the children (two boys) were not really his.
4) In the late 1960's he was working as a pall bearer for an undertakers in Islington, North London.
5) Between 1970 and 1972 he took up employment as a milkman in Holloway.
6) Following this, he was employed as an attendant at Finchley Swimming Pool where he also sold ice cream part time. He was sacked from the Pool in 1977 following a massive expose in theSunday People for his involvement in Nazism.
There is much more folks. But I won't spoil iut 'all in one go'.
C'mon everybody, you must have guessed who I am by now!!??
Anonymous (Farrant) Talks about "a massive expose in the Sunday People for his involvement in Nazism" (February 16, 2007 2:05 PM), but anyone who has read the article will know it is nothing of the kind. Frank Thorne's article claims that there were no Neo-Nazis and that nobody was a Neo-Nazi. Sean Manchester claimed that they were and he has since provided plenty of evidence to back this up. But this is the sort of misleading and deceptive approach Farrant ("Anonymous") always adopts.
It would be quicker to simply treat everything Farrant and his cronies claim as fabricated rubbish than go through each item and deny its authenticity.
Anyone who is that interested in anything Farrant claims (and there can't be that many judging by the dearth of members his forums attract) should take the trouble to investigate. Try talking to people who were contemporaneous and knew the person(s) in question. It will be found that everything stated is sheer fabrication aimed at fueling Farrant's malicious hate campaign.
Meanwhile, the inherent contradictions concerning issues raised about Farrant's claims then and now have not been addressed by him or anyone else. They remain ignored. Yet one only has to look at what he was saying in the 1970s and what he is saying today to realise how little credibility there is in taking him at his word.
In the 1970s he boasted to the media that he was vampire hunting with a cross and wooden stake. He referred to two occasions in 1970 where he entered Highgate Cemetery with the clear intention of impaling the vampire if he found it.
Today he claims that he was not vampire hunting. He claims he was carrying a stake and a piece of string solely for the purpose of measuring out a circle for a magic ceremony. Today he denies that he ever believed in vampires or went in pursuit of the Highgate Vampire with the intention of impaling it with a wooden stake. This is totally contradicted by the interviews he gave to the Thames Television "Today" programme and the BBC's "24 Hours" film in 1970.
Moreover, it is exposed as false when listening to the long interview he gave to the Vampire Research Society in which he confirmed everything attributed to him in the book written by Sean Manchester, ie The Highgate Vampire, where Farrant's part at the very periphery of the Highgate case is mentioned in a chapter titled "Amateur Vampire Hunters."
These interviews where Farrant talks at length about his vampire hunting exploits and all that followed are available on compact disc which is part of a double CD set. The other CD comprises an overview of the Highgate Vampire case from the perspective of those who investigated it. Details of this double CD can be found at:
www.gothicpress.freeserve.co.uk/CD.htm
NOW THAT WOULD EXPLAIN IT!
Does nobody here find it strange that ‘anonymous’ (Mr. Manchester, of course) has addressed none of the issues I have just raised, or his real-life conversations in the secretly taped recordings?
Why not? Obviously he is only left with two choices 1) To tell further lies about these issues or 2) Admit the true facts. (Well, he had a third choice really, which was just to ignore them -–which is precisely what he has done).
Mr. Manchester is well aware to the contrary, that all the issues I raised are on record and can be PROVED. In reality, Mr. Manchester is a proven liar – indeed, anybody listening to the actual tapes (unlike the one recording which I allowed him to make of myself and which he subsequently ‘cut’ to pieces) can hear Mr. Manchester completely exposing himself!
Why he continues to tell his over-whelming lies about myself in the light of this evidence is, frankly, baffling. Unless, of course, we allow for the provision of ‘mental unbalance’. Now THAT would explain it.
Not So Anonymous i.e. myself!
damn it and here I thought I had gotten rid of the pest... So you're back now eh? Ok fine but if you don't behave yourselves I will shut off the anonymous posting AGAIN!!!
For clu
Pardon me for saying so but was it not yourself who created this thread in the first place to discuss the situation on the James Randi thread and now that we are you don't like it. If you didn't want us to discuss the issues then you shouldn't have opened the thread period.
Of course discuss all you want but keep insults to yourself... and why not reveal who you are...?
and by the way, I didn't know that there would be souch a flood of comments...
and also, what new knowledge/insight have been gained from these relentless (and quite frankly monotonous) posters?
Well if that is the case then why has he got involved with the Liberal rite catholic movement, who are for homosexuals and civil partnerships. Mind you I've also noticed that they have now removed the Ad Clerum from their website, I wonder why?????
Loons in disguises?
Well, now you surprise me Greenwych. You say "Mr. Clu", when I always thought she was a beautiful young lady (albeit a slightly misguided one!).
Anyway Clu, sorry whatever!
For now,
DF
“I have spent most of my life studying accounts of vampirism, and have indeed visited Highgate Cemetery on numerous occasions. How it has changed over the years! I am interested in research into any accounts of actual vampirism, from the writings of Dom Augustine Calmet through to modern day accounts. I have a copy of The Highgate Vampire [by Seán Manchester] which I found very interesting. I remember the events at the time they happened and the various newspaper reports. It was then that I first came across the name ‘David Farrant.’ I met him once in a pub near Highgate and found him to be a compulsive liar and there was something shifty about his mannerism. I have since warned many people to stay clear of him.” ~ Andy Pryce, Birmingham (UK), 19 February 2001
Wiccan high priest and author Stewart Farrar said of Farrant: "He gives witchcraft a bad name" (Daily Mail, 26 June 1974), and high priest Alex Sanders dismissed him as nothing more than a bad joke.
Journalist Sue Kentish really hit the nail on the head when she wrote:
"But for the results of his actions this scruffy little witch could be laughed at" (News of the World, 23 September 1973).
This is a far cry from his journalist pal Frank Thorne dubbing him the "Prince of Darkness" (Sunday People, 16 April 1978).
The person closest to an accurate appraisal was author Dennis Wheatley who stated: "I cannot believe for one moment that he is a serious student of the occult. In fact I believe [David Farrant] to be evil and entirely to be deplored" (Daily Express, 26 June 1974).
In the same article Canon Pearce Higgins said "I think he's crazy."
Farrant attempted to sue the Daily Express, Canon Pearce Higgins and Dennis Wheatley but lost the action, receiving a bill for £20,000 court costs, none of which has been repaid.
The Sun, 4 July 1974, reported:
"David Farrant, self-styled priest of the occult, saw his weird world of witchcraft collapse yesterday. An Old Bailey jury found him guilty of trying to stop two detectives giving evidence by sending them voodoo death dolls. And he heard Judge Michael Argyle remand him for psychiatric reports before deciding his sentence. For 28-year-old David Farrant it was the final proof that his phoney black magic was a failure. He had been convicted in three separate trials fro desecrating graves in London's Highgate cemetery, stealing linen from Barnet Hospital and sending the death dolls. In his first trial he bragged he would be cleared because three members of the jury were frightened of his powers. ... In his final trial he was said to have sent clay effigies to Detective Constable Michael Westmore and Detective Constable David Reid to stop them giving evidence against a member of his coven, John Russell Pope, who faced a sex charge."
While serving a four years eight months prison sentence, Farrant wrote a rambling article to capitalise on his notoriety. It was published unedited in New Witchcraft magazine, issue 4, where David Farrant stated in his article:
"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."
“David Farrant sacrificed a cat. It was drugged and he held it up and severed the head with a dagger. … If I could start again, I wouldn’t have anything to do with witchcraft. As it is, it’s like drink and drugs. I can’t give it up.” ~ Martine de Sacy (quoted in the News of the World) 23 September 1973.
“A man who called himself a high priest of witchcraft was convicted last night … Judge Michael Argyle talked of frightened witnesses. He said they feared the accused man, 28-year-old David Farrant, and his talk of black magic.” ~ The Sun newspaper (front page headline: King of Black Magic Guilty) 26 June 1974.
“All he talked about was his witchcraft. He was very vain.” ~ Julia Batsford (ex-girlfriend quoted in the Daily Mail) 26 June 1974.
“I think he’s crazy.” ~ Canon John Pearce Higgins (quoted in the Daily Express) 26 June 1974.
“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 women to frightened misery.” ~ Sue Kentish (quoted in her investigative article in the News of the World) 23 September 1973.
“Judge Michael Argyle QC passed sentence after reading medical and mental reports. He said that Farrant — self-styled High Priest of the British Occult Society [sic] — had acted ‘quite regardless of the feelings of ordinary people,’ by messing about at Highgate Cemetery.” ~ Hornsey Journal, 19 July 1974.
“The judge [Michael Argyle QC] said any interference with a corpse during black magic rituals could properly be regarded as a ‘great scandal and a disgrace to religion, decency and morality’.” ~ The Sun, 26 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.” ~ The Sun, 21 June 1974.
“The programme [for the Fortean Times Convention 1996] 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.” ~ Maureen Speller (April 1996)
Let us be absolutely clear. Sean Manchester has no "involvement" with Liberal Catholics. His book The Grail Church and his church forums make this absolutely clear. Nor is he responsible for anything Liberal Catholics might say about him on their forums.
Regarding the false attribution by someone that Sean Manchester believes Rosemary Guiley is or was a CIA operative, it was not Sean Manchester but Jon King who said this. Manchester merely refers to King's hypothesis in a book.
Jon King (in a glossy magazine he edited at the time) identifies Rosemary Guiley as an Aviary operative, code name Oriel or Morning Dove.
"In the early Nineties [when she met Seán Manchester] Guiley was fully operational in the Aviary's attempts to ridicule and undermine civilian ... research. ... Her mission was to learn what they knew about the phenomenon, and to establish full listings of 'who was who' within said research fraternity. This was achieved, for the most part, by sexual advance and intimate dialogue situations. Guiley was eventually rumbled three years into her mission, immediately following which she 'disappeared' back to the USA."
Nowhere does Sean Manchester also claim that Guiley is a CIA operative.
When David Farrant was interviewed in the News of the World, 23 September 1973, by Sue Kentish, we learn:
"He spoke matter of factly about a ceremony watched by 12 naked, chanting individuals during which he severed a cat's head with a dagger. All the participants then smeared themselves with blood before indulging in sex. 'I did not enjoy having to kill the cat, but for one particular part of the ritual it was necessary,' said David Farrant. 'The sacrifice of a living creature represents the ultimate act in invoking a deity. I do not see animal sacrifice as drastic as people have made it out to be. Thousands of cats are used for medical research. The very livestock we eat have their throats cut. And, at least, I anaesthetised the cat before I had to kill it'. With a shrug of the shoulders he admitted mercislessly pursuing grievances."
When David Farrant was interviewed in the Hornsey Journal, 31 August 1973, by Roger Simpson, we discover:
"A cat was sacrificed to a horned god in a macabre night ritual at Highgate Woods during the weekend involving eight hooded coven members and a naked High Priestess who left at the scene a blood-stained carving knife, blood-splattered stockings and offal. ... A North London coven later claimed responsibility and the coven's High Priest, David Farrant, told the Journal in an interview at his Archway Road flat: 'Hundreds of years ago a naked virgin would have been sacrificed, but obviously we couldn't do this now so we had to have an animal for the important ritual.' The victim was a stray cat and David Farrant stressed that the animal was anaesthetised for the 45 minutes ritual which culminated in the slitting of the cat's throat. The ritual slaughter was a part of the festival of the Black Moon ~ an important date in the witchcraft calendar."
A court report in the Hornsey Journal, 16 November 1979, under the headine, "Ritual sex act and cat sacrifice," reveals:
"Self-styled 'high priest' David Farrant told a High Court jury this week of the night he performed a ritual sex act in an attempt to summon up a vampire in Highgate Cemetery. He also admitted that he had taken part in the 'sacrifice' of a stray cat in Highgate Wood."
In a long interview tape-recorded at his Muswell Hill bedsitting-room in 1978, David Farrant is asked: "Have you ever performed a sacrifice?" He answers: "Yes. It was a cat. The deity demanded the spilling of blood of a living creature." He also revealed that "one of the deities" to whom sacrifices of this nature were made by him is "the lord of the universe" identified by him as "Lucifer." This interview, plus comments that support the belief that Farrant sacrificed cats by John Pope, are available on a CD titled "The Black Witch Project." Farrant and Pope (interviewed separately) can be heard discussing openly their joint attempts to raise demons in bizarre ceremonies, harm people with black magic curses and sacrifice animals in occult rituals. Pope,s extreme political views come across as he talks about "world domination." And Farrant's ugly and sinister side is laid bare for all to witness as he sneers at others and threatens to harm anyone who oppose him.
"The Black Witch Project" can be obtained by going to the following website which lists a number of relevant and interesting books and CDs:
www.gothicpress.freeserve.co.uk/Bookshop.htm
Sean Manchester has indeed had involvement with liberal Catholics because we've seen the emails between them both and not only that but we have the original copies of the Ad Clerum. So how can he get out of this one. Is he now denying that all these emails did not take place including the one where +Kersey is stating that he is mental. Indeed I even forwarded a copy of this email back to +Kersey and Manchester and if need be it can be invoked on here. It's funny that Manchester is now denying the very fact that these people were in support of him and that he even sent +Kersy a christmas card and thanked them for their support!!!! Now get out of this if you can. Oh and if you invoke any of my emails I am not bothered because I have nothing to hide in these. So go ahead and I will print out all emails that +Kersey has ever sent about you.
THANKS FOR THAT OBVERSATION, my anonymous little sweetheart. Mr. Manchester is NOT recognised by The British Old Catholic Church - the very Church he claims to be a 'bishop' of. That can now be irrefutably proved; but back to myself! . . .
I would im,agine by now people on here must be getting thoroughly bored and fed up with Mr. Manchester's on-going personalised 'cut and paste ravings' about myself.
Just to break the monoty, Clu,please allow me to post a very short chapter from my book "The Vampyre Syndrome".
It is really self-explanatory, and, unlike Mr.Manchester's deliberately calculated lies,it is all true. Please read on . . .
PART 5: 'AND THEY SERVED ME DINNER!'
SOME READERS with an interest in the Highgate vampire case, may be aware that in recent months (years in fact), a mass of personalised and vindictive material has been put into circulation attacking myself; not least, being sent to 'vampire enthusiasts', or to clubs or societies to which they may belong. This material invariably involves myself and my known involvement into an investigation I led on behalf of the British Psychic and Occult into an unexplained phenomenon (some later claimed this was, in fact, a 'vampire') at Highgate Cemetery which began in 1969. Much of this material, comprises of allegations made about myself and the part I played in this particular investigation; but unfailingly, its author is one Patrick Sean Manchester whose tactics include writing such material under many different names and aliases. Most of these names are fictitious; the few genuine ones, being friends or acquaintances of Mr Manchester's whom he has conveniently used by persuading them to add their names to his own personalised versions. Indeed, such people are frequently impervious to what he has written, but usually remain silent thinking it a 'great honour' to have been selected by a man who has duped them into thinking he is a recognised 'vampire exorcist', a 'Lord', and an ordained 'Bishop'. His vocabulary relating to myself is immense, (indeed, I appear to be of such importance to him that I apparently occupy most of his life); but in reality, it only serves to influence the gullible or those of an easily impressionable disposition ...
The main purpose behind the publication of this book, was to correct some of the erroneous facts consistently being circulated about the author and his involvement in the Highgate vampire case; facts invariably put out by a man motivated by personal reasons and intent. It is to set right facts which has been deliberately distorted in the public mind, although not to revert to their to their perpetrator's petty level of issuing malicious falsehoods and innuendo. After all, such lies and allegations have no substance outside of his own mind. And that is a problem that only he can inevitably solve. But then, he probably never will. Truth, after all, does not come easily to those who have taken it upon themselves to believe in a fantasy world where 'giant demonic spiders' or equally hideous and malign 'blood-sucking vampires' exist as an undying reality...
There is a certain 'vampire club' that calls itself the 'Vampire Research Society' - the formation in fact, of one individual called Mr. Patrick Sean Manchester; although on his note-paper and the home-made Newsletters he puts out purporting to support his 'legitimate organisation', Manchester periodically describes himself as a 'Doctor' and a 'Bishop of the Old Catholic Church'! He also writes about himself under the name of 'Michael Thane', who in turn, describes himself as the 'company secretary' of the VRS and its 'legal advisor'.
It is a good front; for Manchester has learnt only too well that his personal attacks upon chosen victims are best 'covered adequately' to prevent any possible repercussions. After all, it is not that easy to contact some fictitious person; especially one who hides behind a Post Box number and offers no personal telephone number or address. Much easier, on the other hand, to spout his venom at a safe distance, or disguise this by deflecting his views through fictitious or unguarded people.
Perhaps one of the most blatant untrue pieces of 'misinformation' that has been circulated courtesy of the VRS over the years (and indeed through other channels), is Manchester's extraordinary claim that he first met myself in early 1970 at the time of the filming of a Thames television programme in Highgate Cemetery; the time, he claims, when I was 'living in a coal cellar.'
This statement is not merely accidentally inaccurate, it is deliberately untrue. In fact, I was first introduced to Manchester in the Woodman pub in Highgate by somebody called Anthony Hill. Both Hill and his wife were friends of my first wife and myself at the time, and we would wander into the Woodman on occasion as it was close to where we lived. It transpired that Hill was a friend of Manchester's (who used to play the saxophone in an amateur band that played there weekly) and after our initial introduction I even bought Manchester a drink. It was to be the first of several meetings, in fact, I was later to be invited (by Manchester) to his flat that overlooked the busy Holloway Road where I was introduced to Manchester's live-in companion. Sometimes Hill and his wife accompanied me on these visits, but more often I was alone except for the company of Manchester and his female flatmate. It is fair to say that they were courteous enough: in fact on one occasion aside from being entertained by Manchester's vast selection of home-movies, they even cooked me dinner! These visits took place in 1969 and during the early months of 1970; but nevertheless predate and disprove Manchester's claim that prior to those early months in 1970, he had never met me...
Why, it can only be wondered, has Manchester attempted to 'blot out' events which not only took place, but stand as a provable part of history? Perhaps part of the answer lies in a later obsession he was to develop with myself in 1970 as being a 'sinister black magician' (one which continues to this day) and our earlier relationship would not quite have 'fitted in' with the sinister image about myself he was trying to convey. Whatever, this particular attempt by Mr Manchester to deny or disguise events as these really took place in the past, really does nothing to validify his own credentials. To the contrary, he is inadvertently disclosing that statements he has put forward as 'fact' can be safely relegated to the realms of fantasy or fiction. I suppose a more directly motivated person, would just find such words superfluous, and in their stead, would simply call him a calculating liar . . .
Copyright 2000 The Not So Very Anonymous One!
Barbara Green alleges:
"Sean Manchester has indeed had involvement with liberal Catholics because we've seen the emails between them both and not only that but we have the original copies of the Ad Clerum." (February 17, 2007 6:40 PM)
I have checked with the source(s) and I can assure everyone that there has been no email correspondence between Sean Manchester and the Liberal Catholics who issued the Ad Clerum and then removed it entirely due to harassment received from the Farrant, Fearnley and Green. The Liberal Catholics were not asked to issue their Ad Clerum. They did so of their own volition and apparently still stand by it.
Only unwanted telephone calls, snail mail, emails and daily harassment on the internet obliged them to remove the Ad Clerum from their website. In other words, they were bullied into removing it.
Even so, Sean Manchester is hardly reliant on whether this or that church outside his own jurisdiction issues supportive material. That is entirely their business and it does not involve him.
Other members of Sean Manchester's church are at liberty to respond to whomever they like when they receive emails, but they are not Sean Manchester and it is him Barbara Green falsely claims to have been in correspondence with the Liberal Catholics who issued the Ad Clerum.
Farrant claims:
"Manchester is NOT recognised by The British Old Catholic Church" (February 17, 2007 6:56 PM)
Sean Manchester is the Presiding Bishop of the British Old Catholic Church. The only claims to the contrary originate with Farrant and his cronies.
www.holygrail-church.fsnet.co.uk/BOCC.htm
I would imagine by now people must be getting thoroughly bored and fed up with David Farrant's on-going personalised "cut and paste ravings" about Sean Manchester. Just to break the monotony, please allow me to post a short excerpt from Sean Manchester's memoir "Stray Ghosts." The claims made by Farrant about films etc are pure fiction, as is everything else he posts. What follows from Sean Manchester's memoir on the subject of Farrant is fact and can be backed up by the tape-recordings made of the "Hutchinson" conversations at the time.
'Anthony H---- (given the pseudonym "Hutchinson" by David Farrant) worked part-time at my photographic studio in the 1960s. He apparently knew the interloper prior to anyone in the BOS/VRS, including myself. Anthony, I should hasten to add, was not involved with any of the investigations at Highgate Cemetery. He failed to return to work after a six months “elopement” with the interloper's wife in 1968, opting instead to take employment other than darkroom work, including becoming a milkman and then a newspaper vendor. The bizarre twist to this episode is that David Farrant, also known as “Allan Farrow,” now having been made homeless following eviction from a nearby flat, sought refuge in Anthony’s coal cellar.
'Partial to copious amounts of alcohol, Farrant would later be arrested and held on remand for shenanigans not entirely unrelated to his drinking. A handful of months before the arrest, he wrote to his local newspaper, at the behest of Anthony, to declare that he had seen a ghostly figure some nights as he “walked home past the gates of Highgate Cemetery.” Thus he became one of the many people I interviewed, and was included among those briefly interviewed in the press and on television in 1970.
'There is an obvious flaw in his overture to the press in as much as it is physically impossible to “walk home” from any of the pubs he frequented in Highgate Village and pass by the cemetery gates in Swains Lane. Any map of the area will confirm his cellar lodgings in Archway Road to be located in the opposite direction. But, then, Farrant was less than serious when he wrote his letter of 6 February 1970. Indeed, the exercise was an attention-seeking prank. To that end, I suppose it succeeded.
'I learned these facts much later from Anthony without too much surprise, albeit some dismay. Revelations later made by Anthony only served to confirm what I had already suspected.
'It would seem that Farrant had discussed faking another news story. It was decided to invent a story about the escape and recapture of his macaw, Oliver, now in the care of someone else. This was hardly original. “Goldie” the eagle had escaped from London Zoo in 1965, only to be later recaptured. This became a national news story at the time. Farrant thought he had found a bandwagon on which to catch a ride.
'Anthony, unimpressed by the Oliver story, jokingly suggested a fake suicide attempt from Archway Bridge with a no less bogus “rescue.” This, too, was unoriginal because a news story about the actor and comedian Peter Sellers persuading a depressed person (about to jump off Archway Bridge) from committing suicide had also made the headlines.
'While Farrant was thinking about how to go about manufacturing one or possibly both stories, he heard rumours of an alleged vampire in Highgate Cemetery on his visits to the Prince of Wales and various other pubs in the area.
'The escaped bird and fake suicide attempt stories were instantly ditched. Farrant was determined to exploit the three-year-old word-of-mouth reports of a vampire by writing a letter to the editor of the Hampstead and Highgate Express in early 1970, ending with the frank admission: “I have no knowledge in this field and I would be interested to hear if any other readers have seen anything of this nature.”
'Some readers of the newspaper were able to confirm plenty of sightings. The Highgate phenomenon was a story about to snowball. This had the unfortunate effect of dragging me into the forefront of something I had decided hitherto to keep a lid on.
'I felt it was incumbent upon me to make some sort of statement in view of all the readers’ comments. Thus, on 27 February 1970, following batches of readers’ letters, I appeared on the front page to summarise the view of the British Occult Society and the newly-formed Vampire Research Society.
'It did not make easy reading. Two weeks later, I featured on Thames Television’s Today programme for the same purpose.
'Farrant also made an appearance on the same transmission, along with several youngsters who had allegedly witnessed a spectre at Highgate Cemetery. Sandra Harris, interviewing Farrant, asked: “Did you get any feelings from it? Did you feel that it was evil?” Farrant replied: “Yes, I did feel that it was evil because the last time I actually saw its face and it looked like it had been dead for a long time.”
'Sandra Harris asked: “What do you mean by that?” Farrant answered: “Well, I mean it certainly wasn’t human.” That was all he had to say on the Today report, yet its repercussions haunted him ever after.
Captioned “David Farrant”, he certainly made no claim to any association with the British Occult Society. Needless to say, Farrant was not a member, associate or participant in the activities of the British Occult Society, which existed purely for the purpose of investigating occult and supernatural phenomena.
'The following year found Farrant fraudulently claiming membership. The claim was instantly and publicly rebuffed by the British Occult Society. Farrant next absurdly claimed to be both “president and founder.” Disclaimers followed press reports whenever he was so described, invariably with the editor adding the prefix “self-styled.” Tired of being exposed in the press as an interloping charlatan who had hijacked the name of a long extant organisation, along with the title of its current president, in 1983 David Farrant altered the name of his non-existent “society” by inserting the word “Psychic” in its title. Nobody was fooled.
'He had spoken to the media about his “thousands of followers” (Hornsey Journal, 23 November 1979), and even went so far as to proffer the notion of a number as high as twenty thousand members (Finchley Press, 22 February 1980). However, in the same report was stated the following: “On Monday, Seán Manchester, president of the British Occult Society, disclaimed any connection between Mr Farrant and the society. Questioning Mr Farrant’s claim to have 20,000 ‘followers,’ Mr Manchester said: ‘I challenge you to find one serious researcher in the whole of the United Kingdom who will support any of Mr Farrant’s claims.’ Mr Manchester believes that Mr Farrant’s activities — including the libel action [which he lost] — have been publicity-seeking.”
'This had been my assessment in early 1970 when I first made his acquaintance while interviewing witnesses of the widely reported Highgate spectre. It was also the conclusion of others. The eminent researcher Peter Underwood would comment in a book published five years after Farrant had launched himself in the media: “Publicity of a dubious kind has surrounded the activities of a person or persons named Farrant and his — or their — association with Highgate Cemetery. … a Mr Allan Farrant was caught climbing over the wall of Highgate Cemetery carrying a wooden cross and a sharpened piece of wood. … According to the Daily Mail Allan Farrant saw ‘an apparition’ eight feet tall in the cemetery that ‘just floated along the ground’ when he was on watch one morning waiting ‘for the vampire to rise.’ He believed that there had been a vampire in Highgate Cemetery for about ten years. … Less than a month later a Mr David Farrant was guiding Barry Simmons of the London Evening News on a night-tour of Highgate Cemetery armed with a cross and wooden stake which he carried under his arm in a paper carrier bag. In fact the whole project seems to have been a somewhat dismal and depressing effect — even the cross, created from two pieces of wood, was tied together with a shoelace.” [The Vampire’s Bedside Companion by Peter Underwood, Leslie Frewin Books, 1975, pages 77-79.]
'In a home-produced and stapled pamphlet, self-published a quarter of a century later, Farrant completely denied vampire hunting with a cross and stake. He merely wanted to measure out a circle, he unconvincingly claimed, with the wooden stake and a piece of string. Even so, a nine inch tall photograph of him, holding a cross in one hand and a stake in the other, appeared on the front page of the Hornsey Journal, 28 June 1974, beneath a banner headline stating: “The Graveyard Ghoul Awaits His Fate.” The picture’s caption read: “Farrant on a ‘vampire hunt’ in Highgate Cemetery.”
'The report began: “Wicked witch David Farrant, tall, pale and dressed all in black, saw his weird world crumble about him this week. Farrant, aged 28, the ghoulish, self-styled High Priest of the British Occult Society [sic], was found guilty by an Old Bailey jury of damaging a memorial to the dead at Highgate Cemetery and interfering with buried remains. … Mr Richard du Cann prosecuting, accused Farrant of ‘terrible’ crimes and at one stage described him as a ‘wicked witch.’ … One of the witnesses for the prosecution was Journal reporter Roger Simpson. Farrant had given him a photograph of a corpse in a partly-opened coffin. Because of the nature of the picture, the paper decided not to publish it, and it was handed to the police.”
'The public relations damage inflicted upon the British Occult Society by Farrant’s phoney association was due to his incessant manufacture of fraudulent news stories and claims of “occult powers” and “witchcraft ceremonies.” In countless published interviews given by Farrant to the press, he boasted of sacrificing cats, invariably adding that they were “stray cats” and that they were “anaesthetised” before having their throats slit. “We rarely sacrifice animals in rituals but this sacrifice was essential to our belief as we derive power from blood. The power we gain is used for good as against evil,” he told Roger Simpson in an article for the Hornsey Journal, 31 August 1973, adding: “Hundreds’ of years ago a naked virgin would have been sacrificed but obviously we couldn’t do this now so we had to have an animal for the important ritual.”
'A headline news story in the same newspaper, 28 September 1973, revealed: “Farrant, as the Journal reported, admitted slitting a ‘stray’ cat’s throat at the height of a bizarre witchcraft ritual … in Highgate Woods recently.” There are countless quotes in the press where he describes his animal sacrifice threats and their execution, eg headline of the Hornsey Journal, 7 September 1973: “I will sacrifice cat at Hallowe’en: Farrant,” and the same newspaper, 16 November 1979: “Ritual sex act and cat sacrifice,” followed by a report opening with the words: “Self-styled ‘high priest’ David Farrant told a High Court jury this week of the night he performed a ritual sex act in an attempt to summon up a vampire in Highgate Cemetery. He admitted that he had taken part in the ‘sacrifice’ of a stray cat in Highgate Wood.”
'In another squalid report, where he is interviewed by Sue Kentish for the News of the World, 23 September 1973, he 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 deity. I do not see animal sacrifice as drastic as people have made it out to be. … And, at least, I anaesthetised the cat before I had to kill it.”
'While serving a four years eight months prison sentence, Farrant wrote an article for New Witchcraft magazine, in which he claimed: “In magic, blood is symbolic of the ‘life force’ or ‘spiritual energy’ which permeates the body and in this context is used in many advanced magical ceremonies. It would not be sacrilegious to compare this to the use of wine as symbolic of blood in the Catholic Communion. Accordingly, at approximately 11.45pm, I drew blood.”
'His lengthy description of summoning a “satanic force” is nothing short of an admission to his engagement in unabashed diabolism: “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.”
'Use of the word “temporarily” might have been inappropriate in the circumstances and somewhat premature with hindsight.'
The Liberal Catholics were indeed asked for the Ad Clerum and clearly Mr. Manchester was glad of their support. Right, Mr. Manchester? I shall be posting all of the emails too and from +Kersey and Manchester including the Ad-Clerum.
How can Mr. Manchester claim that we harassed +Kekrsey when all we did was ask a simple question about Mr. Manchester's credentials. Surely is was the other way around and we are more then aware that they threatened to stop our instruction(or more to the point they asked Fr. Simon of the ICOA) who refused to do +Kersey's work for them. As it happens, the details were illegally obtained through Mr. Manchester hacking into my personal email system and looking at our Diocese website. I shall be posting relevant details shortly. I did warn you Mr. Manchester. All correspondence will be shown on here, so that readers can see for themselves what a lying ass hole they all are.
Mon 25/12/2006 19:20
I agree that + Manchester 's views are most unpleasant, but this is beside the point in the situation vis-a-vis Farrant, Fearnley & co - + Manchester is an ally in this situation. He clearly appreciates our support, since he sent ++John a very nice Christmas card thanking him for the Ad Clerum and stating that more unites us than divides us, which is certainly true in this case.
Sat 30/12/2006 14:31
One of the matters raised by Bro. Kevin that we will share, however, has been a definitive statement that the orders of John Simmons were invalid because he at no time received the diaconate. Against this is the statement of Archbishop Thomas that he did so. However, further information has led us to the position where we believe that Archbishop Thomas’s statement is probably unreliable. We are thus in a position where we must regard this succession as doubtful at best.
Thu 28/12/2006 08:53
Dear Fr. Simon,
I will call Bishop Thomas today and have already warned Bishop Manchester that this is a risk. Ultimately we must prepare ourselves to withstand some potential heavy weather. Others have seen worse in the past.
It is another threat against me to withdraw the Ad Clerum. I do not give in to threats or blackmail of this sort and if they go any further we will see about involving the police.
It is necessary in these situations to keep a clear head. They want you to do precisely what you have done, which is worry at their threats and petty rubbish. I do not believe we should be allowing them to dictate our agenda or take up our time.
Pax,
++John
(Below is the email which +John Sent to me asking if I would get in contact with your Priest. As I have said before I didn’t)
Thu 14/12/2006 21:58
It would be an issue for Fr. Simon to consider as to whether the Roman Catholic Church should be made aware of these actions. If someone coming to me for instruction and acceptance into the Church were involved in this kind of futile, destructive and deceptive behaviour – now deliberately misquoting two clergy for their own ends - and was keeping it from me, I’d want to know.
Thu 14/12/2006 22:03
This of course assumes that they are actually involved with the RC at all, and that this is not simply another untruth. Cardinal Cormac can do nothing concerning people such as them who are not members of the RCC. He is not ecumenically-minded and ceased all the contacts with OCs established by ++Hume.
I think we may need to take some form of legal advice concerning an injunction or something of the sort. ++Phillip is in a better position than I to know what options may be available.
++John
Sent by +Andrew Linley Thu 14/12/2006 13:20
Sigh... Perhaps we were naive to hope that we had seen the end of this ridiculous feud. It seems clear that Barbara and Catherine are far from being rational individuals, and have not yet got the hang of Christian behaviour. It is notable that they do not reproduce the text of their claimed letter from the Holy See, since this would be highly unlikely to have stated that +Manchester was 'not a bishop as the term is understood', merely that he was not an RC bishop - hardly headline news, because he has never claimed to be such and regards Roman orders post-VII as invalid in any case. I suspect that further intervention might prove to be a waste of time, since we are dealing with irrational obessives here.
+A
The Most Revd Andrew Linley RSStS BA STP CFM
Supervising Bishop
Independent Old Catholic Church of the Utrecht Succession (IOCCUS)
www.independentoldcatholic.org
www.liberalministry.org
--- wrote:
From: "Independent Old Catholic Church of the Utrecht Succession"
Subject: RE: Bossy bishops and naughty nuns msn board
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2006 09:00:11 -0000
I see also that Catherine has recently got back together with David Farrant. I think that is a reason behind much of this.
Some of the comments I made regarding + Manchester ’s mental state have also been reproduced on her board and distorted in the process. I had specifically requested that this not be done, but frankly now she is in league with Farrant again it comes as no surprise.
++John
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Fr Simon Scruton Sent: 14 December 2006 00:43
To:John Kersey
Cc: revandrewlinley Subject: Bossy bishops and naughty nuns msn board
Catherine and I have had a letter from the highest authority stating that Bishop Sean Manchester is not listed in the ANNUARIO PONTIFICIO and therefore not considered to be in communion with the Holy See and therefore is not a bishop as the term is understood!
So he is only a "Bishop" of his self made church of the British Old Catholic Church in Bournemouth which basically has no proper credentials, even though, with all due respect, we have beem told by another more reputable branch of the Old Catholic Church that he is consdered valid by them.
Obviously what is valid and what isnt valid depends on certain, ultimately, personal points of view. I think Catherine and I will stick with the UNDENIABLY ROMAN CATHOLIC POINT OF VIEW!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beautiful vestments, church furnishings and superb quality and creative church seating solutions. Hayes & Finch Limited.
http://www.hayes-and-finch-ltd.co.uk
Sent By +John Kersey Thu 14/12/2006 08:53
This is more than unfortunate.
I have asked Barbara and Catherine to put aside their feud and their desire for vengeance. Clearly this has proved too difficult at least for Barbara.
We have the prospect of people who know nothing about theology attempting to find any possible way they can to discredit + Manchester . This saddens me. It is not actually about validity of orders at all – it is about the feud and vengeance, both issuing from an individual who claims to be receiving instruction as a Roman Catholic.
What should be done now?
++John
Sent by +Andrew Linley on Tue 05/12/2006 21:23
Laus Deo! And very well done +John. I hope that these two women will now find peace and solace in the Christian faith. It would be satisfying indeed to think that your communications with Catherine and Barbara might have brought this unpleasant issue to a close - or at least as far as the two ladies are concerned, anyway. It also benefits us, ++Thomas, and the movement as a whole. An historic day!
+A
The Most Revd Andrew Linley RSStS BA STP CFM
Supervising Bishop
Independent Old Catholic Church of the Utrecht Succession (IOCCUS)
www.independentoldcatholic.org
www.liberalministry.org
From: "Independent Old Catholic Church of the Utrecht Succession"
To: revandrewlinley Cc: "'Rt Rev Phillip Kemp'" "'Fr Simon Scruton'Subject: RE: sean manchester
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2006 19:57:11 -0000
I did so last night. There was no reply. I have continued in correspondence with Barbara and Catherine today.
I gather that David Farrant expressed doubt on his board that I was telling the truth. Today I provided Barbara and Catherine with documentary evidence of the Apostolic Succession and of Abp. Thomas’ consecration such as to dispel any possible doubt on their part that I had presented them with the true facts. I gather that David did not take this news well.
I have heard later today that Catherine and David Farrant have ended their relationship. It is not for me to speculate on the causes of this. As a result, David’s internet message board has been removed by Catherine. Catherine and Barbara have resolved that they are going to pursue their path of instruction in the Roman Catholic Church, without further contact with individuals whose sanity is somewhat in question. I have wished them every joy in so doing.
I cannot help feeling that this is a resolution to the matter that will promote peace and harmony in this season of goodwill.
Pax,
++John
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: The Revd Andrew Linley Sent: 04 December 2006 18:31
To: Independent Old Catholic
Cc: ; Fr Simon Subject: RE: sean manchester
This is an excellent response. I would suggest that you do indeed send a copy to +Sean, to be on the safe side.
+A
The Most Revd Andrew Linley RSStS BA STP CFM
Supervising Bishop
Independent Old Catholic Church of the Utrecht Succession (IOCCUS)
www.independentoldcatholic.org
www.liberalministry.org
---
From: "Independent Old Catholic Church of the Utrecht Succession"
To: revandrewlinley"'Rt Rev Phillip Kemp'" "'Fr Simon Scruton'" Subject: RE: sean manchester
Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2006 17:02:25 -0000
A related question is whether I should send a copy of this to +Sean.
I do not trust Catherine to be accurate in her reporting of this, I am afraid, and I have no wish to see myself misrepresented.
++John
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Independent Old Catholic Church of the Utrecht Succession [
Sent: 04 December 2006 16:34
To: 'revandrewlinley 'Rt Rev Phillip Kemp'; 'Fr Simon Scruton'
Subject: FW: sean manchester
I thought this would eventually come to pass. I hope I have dealt with it in a way that promotes resolution. If necessary, we may need to present an united front. Or this may be the end of it – who knows.
I am out this evening so if you reply, it will be tomorrow before I see it.
Pax,
++John
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Independent Old Catholic Church of the Utrecht Succession ]
Sent: 04 December 2006 16:30
To: 'Barbara Green'
Subject: RE: sean manchester
Dear Barbara and Catherine,
Thank you for your email.
I can well understand why the various structures of Old Catholicism may seem mysterious to an enquirer! However, I hope the questions you ask can be cleared up easily, though I am afraid at some length. I am a historian of the Old Catholic and Independent Catholic movements in Britain and hold the main archive of historical documents on behalf of my consecrator and friend Archbishop Illtyd Thomas.
Bishop Seán Manchester was indeed ordained deacon, priest and bishop by Archbishop Thomas, and at the episcopal ordination Archbishop Thomas was assisted by the late Bishops Henry Vermeulen and Michael Weston. The ordinations and consecration took place in public, before witnesses, and were undertaken according to the pre-Vatican II Roman rite. Each event is attested to by photographs, documents and several eyewitness accounts. Indeed if you take a look at the photograph at http://www.independentoldcatholic.org/consecration.jpg, taken on the occasion of my own consecration, you will find a photograph of one of the events described above immediately above my head, and another can be less clearly seen to the right of Bishop Andrew. At the consecration, Bishop Manchester received over forty lines of Apostolic Succession from Archbishop Thomas, which pass directly back into history in an unbroken line from Jesus Christ and the Apostles themselves. I have full details of this lineage, which I too have received, available should you wish to see it. It is this succession that assures that the sacraments offered by Bishop Manchester are valid in the Catholic understanding of that term.
I was myself ordained and consecrated by Archbishop Thomas, and am in regular contact with him. He is in very poor health currently (he is 88 and suffers from several serious illnesses), so I would request that you not contact him if possible. I have discussed the ordination and consecration of Bishop Manchester with him previously, as with one of his deacons who was also present, and they have personally affirmed the position I give to you above. As you are probably aware, Archbishop Thomas also ordained Bishop Manchester’s wife to the order of deacon. I am told that all who met her on that occasion found her to be delightful company.
It is often the case that passage through the orders of deacon, priest and bishop is more rapid in the Old Catholic movement than in other churches. There is a key reason for this, which is that the movement has often been in danger of dying out in Britain through the advanced age of the clergy and lack of numbers, and so there has been a need to ensure both that the Apostolic Succession is preserved for the next generation, and that communities, often geographically widespread, are not in want of leadership. Sadly we have seen several good bishops die prematurely in recent years. Bishop Manchester prepared for Holy Orders under the direction of Archbishop Thomas, and I understand that like me he holds a credential from Archbishop Thomas’ own seminary, St David’s Oecumenical Institute. In his case, this credential is a doctorate in pastoral ministry.
I can tell you that there are currently around seventy independent Catholic bishops in Britain and Ireland today, and several hundred priests and deacons, though not all will use the term “Old Catholic” to identify themselves. A more accurate term is “Autocephalous Catholic”, since this term embraces the catholicity and validity of their position while emphasising that they are not in communion with Rome .
In order for sacramental validity to be assured, the requisite matter, form and intent as defined by Roman Catholic canon law must be present. In the case of Bishop Manchester’s ordinations and consecration there is no evidence of any doubt whatsoever that these were present. He is a fully valid bishop and is accepted as such under Roman Catholic canon law, although his consecration, like that of all Old Catholics, is considered illicit by the Roman Catholic Church since it took place without Papal permission. In the past the Roman Catholic Church has specifically endorsed several of the Apostolic lines that he has inherited as fully valid, such as those of Mar Georgius (de Wilmott Newman) and d’Eschevannes. In addition, the Utrecht Union accepts the validity of the lines of my good friend Archbishop Bertil Persson, who consecrated Archbishop Thomas subconditionally in 1985 and whose lines are also inherited by Bishop Manchester and myself.
A point that often puzzles non-Catholics is that once valid Holy Orders have been bestowed, again according to normative Roman Catholic canon law, there is no power on earth that can remove them. This applies even if the priest or bishop has been criminally convicted, regardless of his state of sin, and also in the event that he is heretical or simonistic. The Donatist heresy established many centuries ago that the validity of a sacrament is in no way dependent on the character or actions of the clergyman concerned. He remains in Holy Orders – though he can of course retire from active ministry if he or his jurisdiction choose – until his death.
In the United Kingdom , the Old Catholic communities are decentralised, and are administered locally by the bishop or archbishop concerned, and not by a central figurehead (such as the Archbishop of Canterbury in the case of the Anglican communion). This is an exact mirror both of the Celtic Church in the UK and of the earliest Christian communities in the centuries immediately following the death and resurrection of Jesus. Some bishops will consecrate others to serve a separate community where this has already formed (as is the case with Archbishop Thomas in the case of the consecration of both Bishop Manchester and myself). Others, such as Bishop Manchester, choose to bestow Holy Orders only within their own churches.
The Utrecht Union of Old Catholics exists primarily in continental Europe . It is in communion with the Anglican Church and thus has moved away from its Roman Catholic roots. It generally only comments on or acknowledges its own clergy and parishes, and not those of denominations in the UK or USA .
The nature and theological position of each Old Catholic community itself is determined by its primate, or presiding bishop or archbishop. As a result, communities vary from highly traditional to highly liberal in polity. In Britain , the majority of Old Catholic communities are traditional in nature, and generally take a pre-Vatican II stance. Some are very small home church groups, and others – particularly those celebrating the Tridentine Mass - are of more considerable size, with a significant lay following. Some are custodians of beautiful church buildings of architectural distinction; most are not. It is worth restating that a church in its true theological definition is not a building, but is instead a group of people. The minimum number of persons required for the formation of a church as laid down in the words of Jesus is two: “Again, assuredly I tell you, that if two of you will agree on earth concerning anything that they will ask, it will be done for them by my Father who is in heaven. For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them” – Matthew 18:19-20.
Whatever theological or personal differences may exist between autocephalous Catholic communities, our duty to witness to Truth demands that we acknowledge the facts in any given situation, and particularly in a matter as serious as that of episcopal consecration. It is irrelevant that I am liberal in my approach (though with some traditionalist elements) and that Bishop Manchester is resolutely traditionalist. As fellow Christians, far more unites us than can ever divide. Some communities, not being in possession of the full facts or not wishing to enter into territory that they regard as not their own, will not comment on the ordination or consecration of others not in their community. I am able to take a different view in Bishop Manchester’s case, since I share a consecrator with him and have personally verified the facts at issue.
It is my understanding that Bishop Manchester is the primate of two Old Catholic communities in Britain . The first is Ecclesia Apostolica Jesu Christi, and the second is the British Old Catholic Church. This second community is what might best be described as an umbrella church that unites Traditionalist Old Catholic communities. Neither of these churches has an agreement of intercommunion or any other sort of agreement with my own church, which although liberal in polity has some traditionalist elements and considerable respect for the traditionalist movement. Nor have I been in contact with Bishop Manchester himself, though I have read and enjoyed his published works. However, again I affirm that both of his churches are fully valid Old Catholic communities in the UK , since they are led by a validly consecrated bishop. Since he leads these communities, he is entitled to the office and style of archbishop, though I understand that he does not use this for everyday purposes.
Archbishop Thomas leads the Celtic Catholic Church, a separate autocephalous community descending from the Holy Celtic Church . He is not a member of the Utrecht Union. I give an account of the various Celtic autocephalous churches at http://www.independentoldcatholic.org/celtic.html which may be helpful.
You refer to the Old Catholic Church of Great Britain below, another autocephalous community. This community was founded in 1968 by Old Catholic Archbishops Collins, Distin and Garner, and was based on the constitution agreed in 1910 by Archbishop Joseph René Vilatte and others.
In 2006, this name was usurped without authority and in a hostile manner by an unrelated body which I believe is not a true Old Catholic church at all, since its founder, who has a less than savoury history (see http://www.faketitles.com/html/the_eager_beaver.html) was actually “consecrated” by an Anglican priest (completely invalidly, of course, since only a bishop may give Holy Orders) who has since repented his error. See http://www.pakistanchristianpost.com/articledetails.php?archives=1&artid=202 for a full account of the facts. I hope and pray that this body has not misled you into believing that its prominent website (which consists largely of materials “borrowed” from genuine Old Catholic sites, and whose prominence in search engines owes much to its founder’s professional life as a computer consultant) is in any way to be relied upon as a source of information concerning Old Catholicism.
The issue is subject to future redress by the ICA through the proper channels, including current inquiries by the BBC’s investigative journalists into the individual concerned, and in the meantime the genuine OCCGB uses the name Independent Catholic Alliance to differentiate itself from the spurious body. The ICA is in full concordat with my church and we enjoy a friendly relationship.
This has been a very long email, but I do consider it is important to address fully the matters you have raised. In particular, any attack on the validity of Bishop Manchester’s orders is also an attack on a number of other honest and hardworking clergy who owe their orders to Archbishop Thomas but have no part in any sort of dispute of this kind. The Celtic Catholic Church, with whom we work closely, is doing valuable work where it is often least appreciated. In the past I have seen the assertion that Bishop Manchester paid to receive Holy Orders. This is not only untrue to the best of my knowledge but a gross and unwarranted slur on Archbishop Thomas’ character. Nor are his ordination certificates “mass-produced”. They are simply the standard design used at that time by Archbishop Thomas. I have since produced a new certificate design which has been in use since 2006.
I understand that you may wish to refer to this response on your message board, which I read from time to time. If you do so, please may I ask that you do so accurately. I would in fact be pleased to issue a public statement on these matters through my church if this is what you would prefer. You may be interested to know that, increasingly, the Old Catholic movement is bringing forward clergy from professional backgrounds, and in my secular life, much of my company’s work is as specialist consultant to law firms. As a result of this legal involvement I take a particular interest in relations between Old Catholics and the media. Bishop Jonathan Blake, whose episcopate derives from an Old Catholic bishop, won a recent landmark libel case against Associated Newspapers (concerning their description of him) which is detailed here: http://www.bishopjonathanblake.com/in-the-media.htm (scroll down). Bishop Manchester has also had several complaints upheld by the Broadcasting Standards Council. The era when the press felt free to sneer at and libel any Christian denomination or minister that departed from their mainstream perceptions of the Established Church without fearing the consequences is firmly over. In particular, Old Catholic communities are now widespread on the internet, providing one knows where to find them, and not a few of them are minded to correct inaccuracy and defend themselves from attack.
But I do not want to end on such a note of caution. Instead, if I may, I will adopt my pastoral role for a moment. I recognise that there is hostility, bad feeling and a sense of considerable grievance in your relations with Bishop Manchester, and that as individuals contemplating entry to the Roman Catholic Church, or even were you practising Wiccans, you must surely ultimately long for this to cease. I recognise that you have acted to defend others whom you feel have been victims of a vendetta in a way that you believe has been right. I recognise also that you may feel that Bishop Manchester is himself manifestly at fault in a multitude of matters. I also recognise that others feel similar or greater things concerning the actions of your group and that their criticisms are many and strongly expressed.
I know none of the parties, nor am in any position where I should judge them as a Christian, nor can I involve myself in a matter which is strictly speaking none of my concern. Nor is it appropriate that I should give my personal opinions as to any detailed issue concerned. All I can do is offer some words as an impartial observer in the hope that they may help.
The central message that I would want you to take away from my communication with you is that ultimately (and perhaps surprisingly) it does not matter who is right or wrong in this situation. What we can say unambiguously is that by continuing to fight we only increase the hurt on both sides by the inflicting of further wounds, and build up a mass of resentment that makes Christ weep. The aim of fighting is to achieve the decisive victory, the final thrust of the sword, the coup de grace that sees our opponent lying in the dust begging for our mercy. I have news for you. I have been there, and I’ve seen that happen, and it gives no lasting satisfaction. And it may take many, many years to achieve – years with which you could achieve so much that is positive and meaningful with the gift of life you have been given. The truth is that where we allow ourselves to let in hatred to our lives, it expands to fill the space we provide for it. Eventually it will consume us, and we will look at our lives and ask how we came to waste them so. And then we will answer to God for the same in due course. The only thing that will save us is to let the hatred go.
I was recently in conversation with a traditionalist Catholic schoolteacher whose headmaster had admonished an errant student. “Do you realise what you have done?,” he asked the student. Then, pointing at the crucifix in his office, he said, “That is what you have done.” I would probably not have put the point in such a way, but our own sin certainly does nothing to compensate for that of others and only adds to the burden Christ bears for us. Jesus said, “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, offer no resistance to one who is evil.” (Matthew 5:38-39) How much better it would be for everyone if we can ensure that we do not add to Christ’s burden.
You will doubtless say to me – but what about the wrongs that have been done to David Farrant? Doesn’t he deserve recompense? That is not the Christian way. When we suffer, we suffer with Christ, and by suffering with Christ we move closer to a true union with Him. Now I know that David is a Wiccan and not a Christian, but the issue is the same. The Wiccan Rede tells us to harm none. Wicca, which, believe it or not, was founded in its modern form by a man consecrated by an Old Catholic bishop(!!!), is a religion of peace and reconciliation with the life force, not of revenge and damnation. Above all, if we have any form of faith, it must be that divine power has the capacity to right any wrongs that have been done, perhaps within our lifetime, and perhaps beyond it. I ask you to put the issue in the hands of the God of your faith and to trust in Him for its resolution. Christ said, “Come to me, all you who are troubled and weighted down with care, and I will give you rest.” (Matthew 11:28) If you trust in Him, he will not let you down.
So what I would say in summary is in several parts, and I will put it as simply as I can:
- Bishop Manchester’s orders are fully and unambiguously valid and so are his churches. Please recall that, when you question them, your actions impact on all clergy who have received orders from Archbishop Thomas, who include good men and women of whom you know nothing. For their sake, I appeal to you to please lay this issue to rest.
- The continuation of a feud with Bishop Manchester will ultimately achieve nothing other than to build resentment and destructive hatred. Peace and reconciliation require that one or other of the parties ceases to fight. I appeal to you again to do the noble thing and let that be you.
- Speaking generally, in a dispute of such a kind, the most you can do is state the facts as you see them and walk away. Accept that others will continue to dispute and criticise and may even intensify this after you have left the battlefield. They will continue to state things you regard as wrong or offensive and there is absolutely nothing you can do to stop it. A feud only perpetuates because people rise to that sort of bait and let themselves be prisoner to negative emotions that might otherwise have no part of their character. The longer it goes on, the bigger a part of your life it will be.
- Forgiveness sets you free, and it is the only true victory you can experience in this sort of position. Fill your life with the good things God has provided for you – they are all around you just waiting to be found. Leave the hurt and the pain for God to resolve in His time and in His own way. “If God is for us, who can be against us?” (Romans 8:31).
If I can help further with your questions, time permitting, please let me know.
With blessings in Christ’s name, I remain yours sincerely,
++John
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Most Revd. John Kersey, RSStS,
Co-supervising Bishop, Independent Old Catholic Church of the Utrecht Succession
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Barbara Green [mailto:greenb@blueyonder.co.uk]
Sent: 04 December 2006 12:01
To: info@independentoldcatholic.org
Subject: sean manchester
Dear Sir,
we are enquring into the case of "Bishop Sean Manchester" of Bournmouth who claims he was ordained to priest, and a year alter bishop, by Bishop Illtyd Thomas, wjo is on your list. We would be very grateful for any information you can give. "Bishop"Manchester claims to run the British Old Catholic Church as opposed to the Old Catholic Church of Britain and it is all a bit of a msytery,
Many thanks
Barbara Green and CatherineFearnley
Dear Mr Kersey
We are looking for information concerning Bishop Sean Manchester of the British Old Catholic Church, also known as the Celtic Catholic church. We found information on your site about Bishop Illtyd Thomas who apparently ordained Bishop Manchester in 1991. We do not wish to harrass Bishop Thomas but certain problems with Bishop Manchester have arison over the years, pertaining to his ministry about which he will give no information apart from a lot of lurid pictures and music on his own website whicg h is connected with his vampire hunting exploits.
The OCC OF Utretch to which Bishop Thomas appears to belong, say they know nothing of Bishop Manchester.
Yours sincerely
Barbra Green and Catherine Fearnley
Thisis just for starters
This is an email that I received from Fr. Simon again I have full permission to reproduce.
Dear Catherine,
Thanks for your email.
Hope all is well with you?
I was shocked and really pissed off about +Thomas and Ian His Deacon about their feeling towards me. Both Myself and ++Phillip have never said anything bad about +Thomas and His Deacon. Once again typical Independent Catholic Bitching. Sorry Catherine but it does stink.
Did +Thomas tell you He was well aware of the Situation for a while now and was unhappy about +John engaging with you.
Extract taken from +John Kersey Email sent Thu 28/12/2006 21:34
Conversation with Archbishop Thomas
I spoke on the telephone to Archbishop Thomas this morning. He has been unwell over the Christmas period and has further trouble with his knees. He is still suffering from MRSA.
He informed me that he has received several letters (and I took this to imply that some of these had arrived recently) drawing his attention to Bishop Manchester’s conduct and asking him to deprive him of Holy Orders, and that he regarded his “arguing” with the Farrant group as unacceptable. Almost certainly, these letters are from Farrant’s group, although Archbishop Thomas has kept the names of the senders and their detailed content confidential from me. He told me that it was his intent to issue an instrument of laicization unless +Manchester came to see him and discussed the position. The laicization would, of course, be completely invalid under canon law, as we discussed in the case of +Zimmerman.
I have heard from Bro. Kevin in response to my conveying this message and he points out, quite rightly, that Bishop Manchester’s jurisdiction is autocephalous and that there is no point in a meeting if threats are being made. He also does not understand why Archbishop Thomas believes that Bishop Manchester has been “arguing” with the Farrant group. I suspect that Fearnley and Green have written to Abp. Thomas and that he has found what they say plausible.
Thank you for standing by us when talking to Ian the Deacon. If Ian wants to know about us Ian can pick up the phone and call. So far no res ponce from +Thomas and Ian.
To be honest Catherine for four years now since my Ordination we have had attacks from other Independent Bishops and priests that wish to vent their Ego and Agendas. From day one we simply walked away and let the situation be. +John Kersey and His side kick +Andrew Linley changed everything as we got to the Stage where we had enough. This time we took action.
You supported the ICOA on the Jeff Randi message board after all that had happened. This I cannot thank you enough for. That is why we set the record straight and put right our wrongs. Of course +John, +Andrew and +Sean think we are bastards for doing this. Simply because we did not fulfil their agendas. What angered me more was that +John thought He could simply walk away and pretend that nothing happened.
I gather that +John has had is Say in all this to +Thomas and Ian but before his starts spouting His mouth off He wants to get His facts straight.
I must admit I am very surprised after all that +John has done to you +Thomas and Ian are still in communication.
+Thomas and Ian would have much to say to +John if they heard the rather nasty comments both +John and +Andrew said about them in +Andrews home on the 11th November not to mention that +John openly accused +Thomas of Lying about ordaining +Simmons to the Diaconate. All because Brother Kevin said so.
something interesting about +John. I have just started archiving +Phillip's Emails and found and interesting email which was sent before we met +John on the 11th November and states about your message board and the comments placed upon it. It seems to me that +John has had involvement or aware of the situation long before we met him and you got in contact with him. Will ask +Phillip for permission to send a copy email to you. Might prove helpful. Since seeing the email it answers a lot about why +John knew so much about it when we met him on 11th November 2006.
Let you know if any more news comes about.
Pax and Blessings,
Well, I watched this space, and you posted it yourself in what you claim to be an email from John Kersey:
"Nor have I been in contact with Bishop Manchester himself, though I have read and enjoyed his published works."
I shall repeat it, just in case it didn't sink in the first time:
"NOR HAVE I BEEN IN CONTACT WITH BISHOP MANCHESTER HIMSELF."
Exactly what I said, ie there was no correspondence between these Liberal Catholics and Sean Manchester.
I am unsure as to how legal it is to publish other people's private emails. They are obviously the copyright of the sender. But it looks to me as if Fearnley and Green are digging a hole for themselves out of which they may never emerge.
Fearnley asked:
"How can [Sean] Manchester claim that we harassed +Kersey when all we did was ask a simple question."
Sean Manchester hasn't claimed anything. I did. And I'm not Sean Manchester.
You did not merely ask "a simple question." You pestered John Kersey by sending him endless emails. You posted private email responses from Kersey on your own message boards and other people's blogsites. Some of these have now been removed due to you violations. And you boyfriend, Farrant, has telephoned Kersey and sent him unsolicited material which, I imagine, is now in the hands of the police.
In other words, you have continued to embroil as many people as you can in your obsessive hate campaign. All you have achieved is the making of more enemies and the scorn of the silent observers.
Many of the Old Catholic Churches you contacted last year in a vain attempt to set them against Sean Manchester actually contacted him to renew their support. They have your number, and who wouldn't? Those few who were rash enough to respond to you, eg John Kersey, are now paying the price with your malice and harassment.
Deception and lies are what you and your boyfriend are about as confirmed by The Sun newspaper article of about three months ago.
www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2006500393,00.html
“I remember the events at the time they happened and the various newspaper reports. It was then that I first came across the name ‘David Farrant.’ I met him once in a pub near Highgate and found him to be a compulsive liar and there was something shifty about his mannerism. I have since warned many people to stay clear of him.” ~ Andy Pryce, Birmingham (UK), 19 February 2001
This sums Farrant up really well and is also the verdict of judges and juries who also decided he is a compulsive liar.
How can we claim that those emails were from anyone. Anyone with half a brain can quite obviously have seen that those emails were from +Kersey. Of course those emails were from Liberal Catholics as that is exactly what they are stupid fool. And no we didn't harass him with endless questions and answers. If anything he harassed ourselves. Not to mention he obtained personal details illegally due to Mr. Manchester hacking or someone hacking into my email system on his behalf. And with regards to copyright with emails. It is not against the law to publish emails unless it says private and confidential in the subject or in the body of emails and it did not say neither. Oh and +Kersey sent us unsolicitored emails in the process. Believe me when this gets to Court all the evidence will be laid bare in front of you Mr. Manchester. And how can emails be publishing violations.You've done your own fair share of publishing my own personal emails on websites so you are breaking the law also. See the Alex Lucard scene. Ask me that.
Also how can we be making enemies. Surely it is yourself who is making enemies Mr. Manchester.
Today I have received a letter from Ampleforth Abbey and the Prior there quite plainly sees Mr.Manchester as a crank. Anyone can email me if they wish to see the evidence.
You prove to us who has renewed their support because believe me Mr. Manchester many of the Old Catholic Churche's see you as a crank and indeed many Roman Catholics see you as a crank. Ad do many other people.
Many people have also used the late Cardinal Hume to bolster their 'position' not least yourselves.
So carry on making yourself look a fool Mr. Manchester you're doing a great job in the process.
Oh and if you are not Mr. Manchester then you sure seem to know about the situation.
If they have my number it is only because Mr. Manchester has given it to them in the process because I am not foolish enough to post my private details such as telephone numbers when I am enquiring about Mr. Manchester.
On another note, the Prior at Ampleforth wants me to keep writing with regards to the progress of the situation as he is very concerned.
John Kersey – Hoaxer’s Dupe
I do not really know too much about this ‘Old Catholic Church’ stuff. But to simplify what I DO know, might allay any potential confusion.
To begin with, I have NEVER telephoned the self-styled ‘bishop’, John Kersey, as Anonymous (Manchester) suggests. I really have much more pressing things to do than to take issue with another of Mr. Manchester's ‘dupes’.
Mr. Manchester is most definitely NOT a bone fide bishop; this is a title he gives to himself, by himself.
There does exist a genuine Old Catholic Church; but neither Manchester or Kersey are a part of it.
I have personally met some of the members (and bishops) of the genuine British Old Catholic Church. And of one thing they are all agreed upon in unison . . . Mr. Manchester is not a part of themselves. In fact, he is just an isolated little individual whose only ‘Church’ is constituted by a small bungalow situated on a cliff-top on the outskirts of Bournemouth. No congregation, no members, no organised services . . . nothing! What is really left? Just the word of one man who can not even verify one of the religious claims he makes to so-called ‘religious distinction’!
Nobody really takes Mr. Manchester’s claims seriously, except perhaps himself and the likes of people like ‘bishop’ John Kersey who might view him as an ‘easy ride’ to obtaining ‘unaccountable’ publicity claims.
AMEN! For now,
David Farrant
Barbara Green said...
"Just to add to that, we have repeatedly asked Manchester himself over the years about his church and he never answers, simple stuff like where IS his church and how can we attend a service and also what does his pastoral ministry consist of." (February 18, 2007 6:13 PM)
Neither Barbara Green of Brighouse, Yorkshire, nor Catherine Fearnley of Batley, Yorkshire, have ever contacted Sean Manchester on this matter.
There only interest in pursuing this harassment is their hate-driven obsession which is fuelled by their depraved mentor David Farrant of Muswell Hill, London.
Sean Manchester does not operate out of a "bungalow" (he has never resided in a bungalow) and his church is not based in Bournemouth.
Farrant, Fearnley and Green are fundamentally unbalanced. Anyone with half an ounce of intelligence would deduce that much. Farrant was rumbled years ago by just about everyone. All he has are these two hangers-on who haven't anything better to do with their sad and empty lives.
Barbara Green is even stupid enough to publish her private address, telephone number and email address on the internet. An example can be found at:
http://www.kirkleesmc.gov.uk/community/localorgs/orgdetails.asp?OrgID=3444
Catherine Fearnley is too stupid to realise that the term "they've got your number" is an expression meaning they've rumbled you. She actually thought it meant they've got her telephone number.
What a prize idiot!
David Farrant claims ...
"I have personally met some of the members (and bishops) of the genuine British Old Catholic Church." (February 18, 2007 10:03 PM)
You're a liar, Farrant. You've met nobody in the "genuine British Old Catholic Church." As usual, you offer no evidence because you can't. You just invent one lie after another. Answer me this, what would any genuine priest, bishop or indeed any Christian be doing meeting you? Only less than four months ago you were boasting (again) in the British press that you held a "witchcraft orgy" in a house in Barnet. Virginia Wheeler of The Sun newspaper reported the following on 31 October 2006:
"A SEX-MAD witch and a 200-strong coven plan to celebrate Halloween tonight — by deflowering a teenage virgin.
"Creepy David Farrant boasted yesterday how he will oversee the orgy to initiate the girl into his cult.
"The 19-year-old trainee accountant will have full sex with a 30-year-old High Priest chosen by Farrant.
"As the teen writhes naked with the stranger on the floor, the rest of the priest’s coven drop their robes to watch the display in the NUDE. The 200 onlookers then take part in a MASS-ORGY at a property in Barnet, North London.
"Farrant, 56 [sic], is High Priest of the British Psychic and Occult Society. He claims to have bedded 2,000 women in similar Wicca religious ceremonies.
"He said last night:
“Initiating a virgin on Halloween is very important for Wiccans in serious covens. After the girl has had full sex people are then free to have sex with one another. But it’s not an excuse for a mass orgy - sex is regarded as an essential life force. It’s all done in a private meeting place in Barnet with magical signs on the walls. This sort of thing has to be done behind closed doors because it is not understood by the modern day public.”
"Farrant, from Muswell Hill, was jailed for nearly five years in the 1970s for damaging graves and sending voodoo dolls to police officers. His society now boasts 374 members [sic] and more than 200 are expected at tonight’s bash.
"Farrant, who also describes himself as a Vampire Hunter, said in past years up to three women were initiated at the same time.
"He added:
“These girls are mainly students or people who have left school and are disillusioned with life. They are all over 18 and we don’t initiate them if we believe they are just coming along for the sex.”
http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2006500393,00.html
David Farrant, who incidentally was born in 1946 so cannot possibly be 56, claimed in an interview given to his associate Rob Brautigam in 1995: "I am in fact no longer a Wiccan as such - although it is true that not so long ago, I underwent initiations into the Wiccan belief. ... But now I tend to work alone." (quoted from Brautigam's self-produced magazine International Vampire #18).
David Farrant, accompanied by Barbara Green and Catherine Fearnley, both of whom he first met in June 2004, were all photographed conducting an alleged "occult ceremony" over a tomb on private land at Kirklees Park Estate, Yorkshire, in April 2005. A photograph of this publicity stunt appeared in the local newspaper courtesy of the aforementioned trio who seem to be the sum total of Farrant's coven, cult or society (call it what you will).
Farrant is a sad little creature who has been courting publicity in the press for almost four decades. To achieve this he is obliged to resort to extravagant claims which bear no resemblance to the truth.
I daresay on the night in question (Hallowe'en 2006) he was sat alone in front of his television watching something almost as boring as himself - if that is possible.
For 'Anonymoua' (i.e. Mr Manchester),
You say Barbara Green and Catherine have not been in communication with yourself Mr. Manchester. It is you who are the liar; you have been communicating with them (and accusinging them) unceasinglg via. Message Boards, just as you are addressing myself (or writing about myself) here.
A moderater can easily establish this by checking the aliases under the ISP number of your posts. I invite them to do so.
Quite apart from all th habitual lies you tell about myself (Mr. Manchester), you have dfinitely got some serious mental problem where you invent some 'alter ego'to avoid speaking from yourself in the 1st person.
This is the ultimate sign of a very cowardly individual.
You say that I have not been in contact with genuine members and clergy from the Old Catholic Church.
Well, make up your mind. only just back you accused me of having telephoned 'bishop' John Kersey!
As a matter that is totally incorrect.
But it nevertheless proves that old saying . . . "Liars need good memories"!
Regarding your latest distorted lies about myself here, I think another chapter from my book The Vampyre Syndrome" is calld for.
But that will have to be later today. I have more important things to attend to at the moment.
Have you any particular preference, by the way?
For the moment,
The Not So Very Anonymous One!
I am not going to keep repeating that I am not Sean Manchester, so I trust it will be taken as read by anyone other than the usual culprits who have an agenda to accuse anyone who challenges them of being him.
Farrant said:
"You say that I have not been in contact with genuine members and clergy from the Old Catholic Church. Well, make up your mind. only just back you accused me of having telephoned 'bishop' John Kersey!" (February 19, 2007 12:40 PM )
Farrant said:
"I do not really know too much about this ‘Old Catholic Church’ stuff. ... There does exist a genuine Old Catholic Church; but neither Manchester or Kersey are a part of it." (February 18, 2007 10:03 PM)
David Farrant said:
"I have personally met some of the members (and bishops) of the genuine British Old Catholic Church." (February 18, 2007 10:03 PM)
Identify the ones you claim to have met. I bet you can't. You're a liar, Farrant, and all you offer is excuse after excuse why you can't deliver the goods.
Regarding your latest distorted lies about Sean Manchester here, I think another chapter from his memoir "Stray Ghosts" is called for.
But that will have to be later today. I have more important things to attend to at the moment.
Have you any particular preference, by the way?
I can confirm that David has indeed met some Old Catholic Priests and not only that but they live in London, any names ring a bell, Mr. Manchester. I shall be meeting the very same Priests in March/Arpil Mr. Manchester.
No Mr. Manchester, you tell us who have offered to renew their support to you again, because I can tell you one thing, nobody has offered their support for you. Even +Kersey has closed ranks on you. Everyone thinks that you are a complete Crank.
Heads will be rolling before long, and not before time. I'll see you in the Tower of London or on London Bridge on a Spike!!!!! Or even with your head in a basket at Halifax Gibbett.
NB: You cannot answer a simple question can you Mr. Manchester, now I wonder why that is?
For the record I have never been in any cult, coven call it what you will. Just because Barbara and myself happened to be there does not mean that we were taking part in the ceremony. We were there to show everyone how to get to the gravesite. At least one of us has permission to visit the grave whenever we want to (and I am on good terms with David Hepworth the local historian who lives on s.te), and have been on many private visits, including being shown inside the gatehouse. Which is more than what can be said for Mr. Manchester who even in his own article (which was published in the Uri Gellars Encounters magazine) claimed that he had illegally trespassed onto private land.
Just because Mr Hepworth and myself have had our fair share of ding dongs, doesn't mean that we can't put the past behind us and be on good terms wich each other. I even know Mr. Hepworths dogs. So again Mr. Manchester do you think that people really care about your comments about us. Because we sure as hell don't.
It is you yourself who is the ultimate liar.
Pathetic, even by your standards.
Everybody KNOWS it is you Sean. You're the only person who uses that ludicrous purple prose. Your IP address is recorded every time you post on the internet (A fact that seems to constantly elude you). You get caught out time and time again and you still expect people to believe it is "Dennis" or "Katrina"!
STAND UP AND BE COUNTED MR. MANCHESTER.
Regarding your latest distorted lies about Sean Manchester here, I think another chapter from his memoir "Stray Ghosts" is called for.
Perhaps you would like to read another Chapter from Man, Myth and Manchester?
How about "From Hymn to Pan?"
or "The Life and Times of Baby Manchester?"
You choose.
Thrill with the lissome lust of the light,
O man! My man!
Come careering out of the night
Of Pan! Io Pan!
Io Pan! Io Pan! Come over the sea
From Sicily and from Arcady!
Roaming as Bacchus, with fauns and pards
And nymphs and satyrs for thy guards,
On a milk-white ass, come over the sea
To me, to me,
Come with Apollo in bridal dress
(Shepherdess and pythoness)
Come with Artemis, silken shod,
And wash thy white thigh, beautifal God,
In the moon of the woods, on the marble mount,
The dimpled dawn of the amber fount!
Dip the purple of passionate prayer
In the crimson shrine, the scarlet snare,
The soul that startles in eyes of blue
To watch thy wantonness weeping through
The tangled grove, the gnarled bole
Of the living tree that is spirit and soul
And body and brain - come over the sea,
(Io Pan! Io Pan!)
Devil or God, to me, to me,
My man! My man!
Come with trumpets sounding shrill
Over the hill!
Come with drums low muttering
From the spring!
Come with flute and come with pipe!
Am I not ripe?
I, who wait and writhe and wrestle
With air that hath no boughs to nestle
My body, weary of empty clasp,
Strong as a lion and sharp as an asp -
Come, O come!
I am numb
With the lonely lust of devildom.
Thrust the sword through the galling fetter,
All-devourer, all begetter;
Give me the sign of the Open Eye,
And the token erect of thorny thigh,
And the word of madness and mystery,
O Pan! Io Pan!
Io Pan! Io Pan Pan! Pan Pan! Pan,
I am a man:
Do as thou wilt, as a great god can,
O Pan! Io Pan!
Io Pan! Io Pan Pan! I am awake
In the grip of the snake.
The eagle slashes with beak and claw;
The Gods withdraw;
The great beasts come, Io Pan! I am borne
To death on the horn
Of the Unicorn.
I am Pan! Io Pan! Io Pan Pan! Pan!
I am thy mate, I am thy man,
Goat of thy flock, I am gold, I am god,
Flesh to thy bone, flower to thy rod.
With hoofs of steel I race on the rocks
Through solstice stubborn to equinox.
I rave; and I rape and I rip and I rend
Everlasting, world without end,
Mannikin, maiden, maenad, man,
In the might of Pan.
Io Pan! Io Pan Pan! Pan! Io Pan!
OVER TO YOU AGAIN 'ANONYMOUS ONE'
You say that you do not believe that I have been in contact with the Old Catholic Church, Mr Manchester (the legitimate OCC, that is).
Good. Then don't believe me! Do you think I really care what you believe or do not believe? No. Your opinions mean little or nothing to myself. You have a very distorted mind, Mr Manchester, and I would be more likely to listen to a 5-year-old child in kindergarton trying to convince me that Santa Claus existed!
As for you, my little anonymous sweetheart, think really the best one to post would be my famous review of "Stray Ghosts" - that 'Internet book' that has never found it way into publication.
So, care to post up some more, Mr. Manchester?
The Blatantly Obvious Not So Anonymous One!
THE LIFE AND TIMES OF BABY MANCHESTER
Many people will be aware, that in recent times, Mr. Patrick Sean Manchester, a self-appointed ‘bishop’ of the Old Catholic Church, is also claiming to be a direct descendent of the poet Lord Byron. It is his ‘hereditary right’, he says, and ‘backs up’ his claim by a mass of self-pronounced assumptions.
The main one seems to be, a claim made frequently by Manchester, that his mother’s side of the family, he is less unclear about; or perhaps more accurately, he is unwilling to state more mundane facts, that his father’s only claim to any distinction, was a career as an audit clerk.
But to examine the evidence in more detail…It is a fact that the baby Manchester was born in Nottingham on a dreary Council Estate not far from the busy main line railway station; indeed, only nine miles distant or so from the magnificent remains of Newstead Abbey, the legitimate home of the legendary Lord Byron.
It was here that his parents often used to take him (Manchester) to visit from an early age, and who can imagine what used to run through the infant Manchester’s mind as he stared up in wonder at the awesome ruins from his push chair, or what premature thoughts of grandeur were born in this surreal environment that were to have a bearing on his later life. (A marked distinction, perhaps, from his parental home in Nottingham). The makings of a fragmented dream, no doubt, that tormented the young infant’s mind… Why, oh why, should not all this not be a part of his personal heritage? After all, none of the previous residents were around who could take objection; who could despoil his claims; but more than that, he had set foot in the ruins…he had actually been there!
More than likely, this is how the dream first began…And it is a fact, that from the early 1970’s, Manchester was referring to himself as a ‘Lord’; although at the time, he was only using this title loosely, calling himself “Peter Lord”. His obsession with the genuine Lord Byron, apparently took concrete form a few years later, when Manchester began proclaiming himself to be a direct descendent of the great poet. This claim - that Manchester commonly circulated to the media and others - went mainly unchallenged, but in a an interview to Time Out in 1980 (in fact, about Manchester’s connection with myself), the ‘great man’ appears to have become ‘unstuck’. He was asked about his widely circulated claims to be a ‘Lord’, and, taken by surprise, Manchester replied to Duncan Camphell… “The Lord’ is, says Manchester a joke-name that arose out of a clairvoyant’s opinion that Manchester had been a 13th century Celtic war-lord”. (TIME OUT, January, 1981).
Manchester was obviously very cautious about this claim, because even three years later in a letter he wrote to City Limits, (again concerning myself) he stated … “according to family records I am the descendent of the noble Bard’s indiscretion with a housemaid at Newstead Abbey”! City Limits, May 25 1984. (Explanation mark my own).
Well, I suppose some might surmise that at least we have the evidence to support Manchester’s claims to his ‘hereditary title’. I suppose we must be fair to Manchester, in that at last, he volunteered information to support his “ancestral links”; but, on the other hand, all this really confirms - if true - is that Manchester is, in effect (and as he appears to boast), only the result of a clandestine affair the real Lord Byron had with some domestic prostitute.
If I am wrong, and if something other should really be the case, then please, Mr Manchester, I beseech thee - in view of the fact that this claim of yours has appeared so persistently on public record - please show us some corroborative evidence which might verify the true situation once and for all.
I am sure that Lord Byron, himself, would have desired you to produce such evidence. If for no other reason, than to let him rest peacefully in his grave.
David Farrant
First published in Man, Myth and Manchester Series 1 Issue 1 ISBN 0951786776 2000 and is in the public domain.
This old age pensioner, Farrant, who has never worked in his life and has sponged of the State for the last forty years while claiming to be the "high priest" of 20,000 non-existent members, will spend the remainder of his alcohol-soaked life, chain-smoking cheap cigarettes (he rolls his own) as the nicotine stains creep up his skeletal arms, while posting the fabricated garbage which appears above.
He actually spends money getting this sort of rubbish printed and distributes to those who largely don't want to receive it. Hence complaints to the police by a number of these people a little while back.
The public first learned of David Farrant when he wrote to the editor of the Hampstead & Highgate Express. His correspondence was published in the readers' letters' column on 6 February 1970. It now follows:
"Some nights I walk home past the gates of Highgate Cemetery. On three occasions I have seen what appeared to be a ghost-like figure inside the gates at the top of Swains Lane. The first occasion was on Christmas Eve. I saw a grey figure for a few seconds before it disappeared into the darkness. The second sighting, a week later, was also brief. Last week, the figure appeared long enough for me to see it much more clearly, and now I can think of no other explanation than this apparition being supernatural. I have no knowledge in this field and I would be interested to hear if any other readers have seen anything of this nature."
Farrant was interviewed on Thames Television's Today programme one month later by Sandra Harris. This time he claimed he had seen the figure, now identified as a vampire, only twice ~ not on "three occasions" as previously stated in his letter to the editor. What he described was a walking (or "hovering") corpse which "looked as if it had been dead for a long time." Sandra Harris asked Farrant if he thought the walking corpse was evil. He replied: "Yes, I did think it was evil."
The description by Farrant in March 1970 bears no resemblance to his description some two or three decades later where the corpse-like figure mysteriously became an ectoplasmic mist with red eyes. No mention of red eyes was made by Farrant during the 1970s. And certainly no mist.
In the interim Seán Manchester's bestselling book "The Highgate Vampire" had been published where a shape-shifting mist with red eyes is described. Draw your own conclusions. That notwithstanding, the note Farrant sent Seán Manchester in August 1970 certainly explains why vampires for Farrant had suddenly become unfashionable. He revised his already highly dubious account of walking corpses to ley line activity coupled with a mist with two red eyes when pressed to explain his experience of 1970 in later years.
On 20 April 1996, Farrant told a Fortean Times Unconvention audience that he did not believe in the existence of evil. On the Michael Cole Show, 20 December 1998, he stated that he did not believe in vampires or the existence of the Devil. In his self-published pamphlets he claims that he has never believed in traditional vampires and, moreover, did not engage in vampire hunting in 1970.
However, during his interview for the BBC's 24 Hours, transmitted on 15 October 1970, Farrant was seen demonstrating his vampire stalking technique with a cross in one hand and a wooden stake in the other. In both his Today interview, 13 March 1970, and the 24 Hours interview, 15 October 1970, Farrant made it absolutely clear that he was a self-styled vampire hunter. This was reflected in newspaper interviews and reports about him throughout 1970.
Let us return to his letter in the Hampstead & Highgate Express, 6 February 1970, to discover exactly why it is highly dubious. He opens with the words: "Some nights I walk home past the gates of Highgate Cemetery." Farrant, at that time, was residing at Archway Road. Anyone who knows the general area will be aware that to walk home to that address from any of the pubs in Highgate Village (Farrant drank most nights in the Prince of Wales) could not possibly take you "past the gates of Highgate Cemetery" because the graveyard is in the opposite direction.
So Farrant, after drinking his ale all night, apparently walked home by taking a route that would create a detour miles out of his way instead of just nipping down in the opposite direction to where he was residing in nearby Archway Road just fifteen minutes' away?
He obviously hadn't thought his story through before sending it to the newspaper.
In the same letter to the Hampstead & Highgate Express, Farrant states: "I have no knowledge in this field." For once he was telling the truth because Farrant is an interloping charlatan and bandwagoneer who seeks attention for its own sake. He does not actually believe in any of the claims he makes. He most definitely does not subscribe to witchcraft or any belief, as recorded interviews of private conversations have revealed.
He might genuinely detest certain individuals against whom he wages vendettas, but his acts are otherwise a sham. He is an arch-deceiver who does not believe in his own rectitude.
The November 1972 case where he was found guilty of indecency at Barnet Magistrates Court is a prime example. It was revealed in court by the Crown Prosecution that Farrant was someone who had colluded with a journalist (who just happened to be related to Farrant's co-defendant) to orchestrate his arrest in a churchyard with a girl for the sole purpose of self-publicity in newspapers. This was confirmed by one of the more reputable newspapers in their coverage of the court proceedings where Farrant and his co-defendant, Victoria Jervis, were both found guilty of indecency.
The Hampstead & Highgate Express, 24 November 1972, revealed:
"Mr P J Bucknell, prosecuting, said Mr Farant 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."
It would not be the first or the last time that Farrant would collude with newspaper reporters to arrange to have the police conveniently arrest him in the middle of a supposed "witchcraft ceremony" with reporters and photographers standing by to witness the whole event.
What was established beyond all doubt is that Farrant is a phoney witch; something the national press (eg "Phoney Witch Sent Out Dolls Of Death" article on page 5 of The Sun, 4 July 1974) dubbed him when he was sentenced at the Old Bailey to almost five years imprisonment in June 1974.
It follows that he is a phoney everything else. The cry of "I'm not a Satanist!" whilst manufacturing what is clearly a piece of satanic theatricality for the press would become his modus operandi thereon.
What was he doing, for example, writing an article and providing photographs of himself and a girl naked in bed, stating in it that he raised a "Satanic Force" in Highgate Cemetery? These are his exact words in New Witchcraft (issue 4, published 1975):
"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. The entity was present. We felt our bodies being 'charged with Power' and there was now a visual Force all over us."
What then follows amounts to a regurgitation of Aleister Crowley's "sex magic" at its most disgusting where orgasms lasting "seven minutes" are alleged by Farrant who was commissioned to write the article from his jail cell by the magazine's editor, Brian Netscher, who had negotiated terms over the pictures with someone collaborating with Farrant on the outside.
Martine de Sacy, the naked girl in one of the published pictures, had already admitted to the News of the World, 30 June 1974:
"I don't think David's occultism was serious. He was just dabbling in it for the sense of self-importance."
The same feature article quoted Farrant's estranged wife from her Old Bailey appearance as a defence witness. Mary Farrant was unequivocal, saying:
"Nobody was involved in witchcraft or the occult."
Twenty years later, when interviewed by the News of the World, 17 July 1994, for a two-page feature titled “Pervert Preys On Kids In Name Of The Devil,” Farrant is quoted as saying:
“As High Priest I have to have sex with a girl at her initiation, but if she is very unattractive I might pass the task on to someone else. I’m only human.”
The report goes on to describe orgies and rituals involving “policemen and politicians.” Farrant also laid claim to having the ability to “cure cancer and make the blind see again” through the use of his witchcraft. This is the miserable fantasy world of depravity and deception by which Farrant infects the public via the media.
The tricks of his trade (his devices and stratagems) are shock followed by denial followed by publicity. The latter is his prize. He is not harmless because others invariably become entangled in the web of deceit he spins from his Muswell Hill attic bedsitting-room.
His criminal convictions include indecency in Monken Hadley churchyard; malicious damage in Highgate Cemetery; offering indignity to remains of the dead via the use of a tomb for "witchcraft" photographs taken of a naked girl (Martine de Sacy) and photographs of himself peering into coffins; theft of items from Barnet General Hospital; possession of a handgun and ammunition; and, last but not least, threatening police witnesses with voodoo dolls transfixed with pins and accompanying menacing poems.
He was awarded the derisory sum of £50 in a libel action against the News of the World where it could not be proven that "David didn't do these ridiculous things for sex ... [because] he was a failure as a lover," (quote attributed to Martine de Sacy in an article titled "Casanova Witch A Failure As A Lover"). The witness herself had returned to France and could not be found in time for the High Court trial.
Farrant lost a libel action against the Daily Express whose correspondents had accused him of being insane and evil. £20,000 court costs were awarded against him. He is yet to repay a single penny. British taxpayers have picked up his bill.
The Hornsey Journal, 16 November 1979, carried these lurid details:
"Self-styled 'high priest' David Farrant told a High Court jury this week of the night he performed a ritual sex act in an attempt to summon up a vampire in Highgate Cemetery. He also admitted that he had taken part in the 'sacrifice' of a stray cat in Highgate Wood."
Farrant, now sixty-one years old, shows absolutely no remorse for any of his disgraceful behaviour of which only the tip of the iceberg appears here as an illustration of how he has wasted the last four decades of his life.
Journalists still occasionally provide him with the oxygen of publicity, which is a sad reflection on their integrity, eg Virginia Wheeler in The Sun, 31 October 2006.
When someone has a track record such as Farrant's, you do not simply take them at their word. You have to first investigate ~ researching the public annals thoroughly ~ and only then proceed with extreme caution before accepting anything that issues in connection with this charlatan.
The so-called "British Psychic and Occult Society" is a device created by Farrant in 1983 solely to attract publicity. He had earlier attempted to usurp the nomenclature of the genuine British Occult Society who wanted nothing to do with him. Newspaper editors and journalists were obliged to insert "self-styled" in front of any claim he made in this regard, just as they used the same prefix when describing him as a "high priest of witchcraft" ~ a phoney status that other witches and pagans reject.
The bottom line is that David Robert Donovan Farrant is nothing more than a self-styled fool, publicity-seeker and fake.
This old age pensioner, Farrant, who has never worked in his life and has sponged of the State for the last forty years while claiming to be the "high priest" of 20,000 non-existent members, will spend the remainder of his alcohol-soaked life, chain-smoking cheap cigarettes (he rolls his own) as the nicotine stains creep up his skeletal arms, while posting the fabricated garbage which appears above.
Let's examine the above paragraph (Which shows just how rattled we have got him) for factual accuracy shall we.
1) David is NOT a pensioner. He is 61. Pension age is 65 for UK males.
2) David must have worked at some point as according to his nibs he has been a hospital porter and a tobacconist. Today David works as a writer.
3) David does not sponge off anyone.
4) So what if David likes a smoke and a drink, so do I.
AT LEAST DAVID ISN'T A FAT, BALDING, IMBECILE PONCING ABOUT IN A FLEA-BITTEN OLD BISHOP COSTUME.
YOU ARE A COMPLETE JOKE, Mr. Manchester.
Hi David,
I fancy a Bakewell Tart with my cup of tea ..... What do you think???
Love from Veronica.
Advanced Senility?
Thank you for that 'Anonymous'. I don't know which 'anonymous' you are, except that you are not my 'sweetheart aonymous'or Greenwych because neither of them smoke! (I smoke Lucky Strike, by the way so wrong again Mr. Manchester).
Actually, I think Mr. Manchester has now more than adequately demonstrated to people here as to just why the series of official booklets "Man, Myth and Manchester" were first issued (out of Society funds)in 2000.
They were printed to put on public record true facts to retract just the sort of nonsense Mr. Manchester has just personally written above. (It was also for this same reason that he was secretly tape-recorded). Mr. Manchester was releasing this fabricated material long before the publication of the 'retractive books' - it was not the other way around.
But anybody reading the above can perhaps see just how obsessed Mr. Manchester really is with myself. I seem to have 'taken over' his already very sick mind; indeed, he probably spends most of his sleeping hours dreaming about me!
Just for the record, I never worked as a 'tobacconist'. I bought two very expensive shops in Highgate in 1967, yes. But these were really for profit and my first wife who managed one of them.
Sorry, wrong yet again, Mr Manchester!
I don't know where Mr. Manchester got the 'hospital porter' bit from. Probably a similiar distortion from the early 1970's when I was going out (OK having an affair with!) a live-in nurse at a North London hospital. True, I used to 'unofficially' spend the night there occasionally, but I didn't work there! Poor confused old man. Obviously some of this is due to advanced senility!
More later.
The Blatantly Obvious Not So Anonymous One!
Hi Barbara,
I think Manchester must have an eating disorder or something. How can a person let themselves go so quickly? David looks a good 10 years younger than Manchester these days. I'm surprised his wife doesn't trade him in for a better model! Fancy having to climb into bed with that. If Manchester gets any bigger they will have to rewrite the tide tables for the South coast!
PS - David, It's Darkstorm (Alex) here. I Don't get much time for posting these days due to a new job, but hope you are all well.
Hi Alex,
Where have you been? We mislaid your e-mail and my dear little 'anonymous sweetheart' ws trying to ask you to rejoin our new main forum.
I don't know if you're really supposed to put links here but as you're here now, I'll take a chance. (Clu can always take it down, but please leave it a little Clu until he sees it!)
The main Board is at davidfarrant.org and a big link to the new Forum is on the main page.
Please re-join if you want.
Well, just this for now, David.
Sorry, I mean The Not So Obviously Anonymous One!
Hi David,
I got a bit tired of all the religious stuff to be honest so I stopped posting for a while. Then your boards all seemed to disappear! I may join at some point but I think I've got most of the answers to the original Highgate stuff now. I only found this blog when I browsed "Bossy Bishops" recently having found it in my old favourites list.
Could I asked what happened to your old proboard? Did boffinack get it closed down or something?
Anyway, I still don't believe in blood sucking Vampires, which is the main thing!
Regards,
Alex.
Hi everyone it's me again.
For Alex, I merely created a religious thread on our Proboard because of several requests to open a thread for this type of discussion. So sorry if you got fed up of it but we cater for everyone. With regards to closing down the proboards. We had to do this because of personal reasons. As for Mr. Manchester, I hope that everyone enjoys reading this post.
STRAY GHOSTS
AN EXCLUSIVE REVIEW BY DAVID FARRANT
SEAN MANCHESTER’S long awaited biography by “Katrina Garforth-Bles” has finally been released on the Internet; at least, not in the form in which it was originally advertised but as an autobiographical account of Mr. Manchester’s life … by Mr. Manchester himself! It would seem nothing short of a belated miracle that Sean Manchester has finally decided to sign his own name to his oft sensationalistic writings; maybe he decided that his “Katrina alias” was wearing a bit thin and that if people knew that it was really himself anyway writing about himself from a safe distance, he might just as well come forward and be counted for a change - especially, as it would have stretched the imagination a little too far to believe an otherwise named third party could be aware of private details and intimate feelings that otherwise had to be put forward to give any credence to his private life.
The text is introduced by “brother” Keith MacClean, an ex-hippy cum self-styled priest in the Old Catholic Church; a man certainly ensconced in a delusionary world of impossible political utopias, probably enhanced by a long time usage of cannabis.
“I think that the inside is now on the outside”, he tells us, “which is a trifle difficult, but probably all to the good. The esoteric, magical, weird and strange bother me, and I daresay my reaction to the case of the Highgate Vampire might have been catastrophically negative if I had never met Sean Manchester…”
Quite. A pilgrimage he planned with Sean Manchester in 1973 whereby both of them announced their intentions in the press of carrying two heavy crosses on foot to Morocco, never quite came to fruition; whilst at the same time, MacClean claimed that he sought Manchester’s help after realising that his then girlfriend, Elizabeth Wojdlya, had been bitten on the neck by a real-life vampire!…
However, I digress. Maybe we should just be “thankful” that Manchester’s persistently advertised book has finally appeared - all twenty two chapters of it - although it graced Mr. Manchester’s web page “English Gothic” in it’s original form for only three or four weeks. (For collectors of Mr. Manchester’s often sordid material, this would seem a shame; although more discerning people would have obviously downloaded the whole caboodle - pictures included - just the same!)
The book begins with Manchester’s childhood and we are graced with early photographs of our hero; not least, three of these showing Manchester dressed in baby shorts; in one, cuddling what can only be described as a kind of “Sooty-like” cum “Rupert Bear” type teddy bear. (Well, he can not really be criticised for this, I suppose, as he does not pretend to have been more than four or five at the time).
In fact, Manchester devotes much space to this early period of his life but perhaps, as expected, offers his early upbringing in Nottingham, and subsequent visits to Newstead Abbey, as “proof” that he had links - nay, was directly descended by blood - to the legendary Lord Byron. Anybody wanting to test such proof, though, would be wantonly disappointed. It is so nebulous as to be farcial. Although, of course, Manchester would argue the latter to be irrelevant as, after all, we do have his word for it!
Eventually leaving his extreme youth, descriptions of various schools included (although by exclusion, he contradicts a persistent past claim that he went to Harrow), Manchester moves on to his later teenage years and describes - some might say most unadvisedly - his leanings towards far right politics; including meetings he had with the late Oswald Mosley. He admits to attending major rallies at which Mosley and far Right supporters were present, although he attempts to “water this down” by stating that he was only there in his capacity as a professional photographer!
But it is a weak defence, as Manchester can barely contain an obvious admiration he had for the far Right movement and certain people connected to the same. (For example, Manchester shamelessly admits that after leaving school, he shared a cluttered flat with “Gerhard”, the son of a high-ranking Nazi officer, and was aware of Gerhard’s active participation with the far Right in London and his love for “all things Hitlerarian”)
It must be said, that the subsequent section of Manchester’s text, could only be termed laborious and boring - were it not overally funny!
Manchester describes his early interest in Jazz, and goes on to submit everybody to elaborate descriptions of small gigs he played at during the latter part of the sixties. A photograph used to illustrate one of these shows Manchester struggling with a large saxophone (I suppose one mercy is that we are spared the actual sound) accompanied by two other people. He gives the impression that this took place in an exclusive West End club; but the somewhat more mundane truth is that, like the one portrayed in this photograph, most of Manchester’s “musical gigs” took place in small pubs in North London!
He moves on to describe his employment at Finchley Swimming Pool in North London and maintains (with posed snapshots to “prove it”) that he was “in charge” of staff there. In fact, the Manager was a Jewish gentleman named Heinz, and Manchester completely neglects to mention that he was sacked from there in late 1977 following his exposure in a large Sunday newspaper for his involvement in Nazism!
In fact, the newspaper (the Sunday People) did not mince its words and published a lead full page photograph of Manchester dressed up in full Nazi uniform with accompanying captions describing him (Manchester) as a “faker”, a “hoaxer” and a “liar”, (Sunday People), October 9th 1977).
But if Manchester was less than truthful about his employment at the swimming pool, he was even more reserved about his previous employment. He had worked as a milkman in Holloway for over a year; but he chooses not to even mention this in the book.
Various “love affairs” are also described around this period. But remarkably, although purporting to be a true autobiography, Manchester also neglects to mention that at this period - or shortly before this period - he got married. Like his first wife, his two children might just have well been “non-existent” - at least, their existence is conveniently ignored for Manchester’s version of his autobiography.
Manchester’s reminisces about his personal life, in fact, leave much to the imagination; not so much by the way of what is said, but by events that he carefully chooses not to mention.
Some interesting snippets do come to light, however; though in retrospect, Manchester may well come to wish he had given more thought to some sordid “revelations”. One confession in this respect, is certainly most bizarre; indeed, one could be forgiven for thinking that it betrays vestiges of thought by somebody with a very sick humour….
Manchester describes the last meeting ever he had with his sick mother. She was on her death bed, only to die a few hours after Manchester last saw her.
Manchester says … “Most of all, Dorothy wanted a child. Arthur Allen was less enthusiastic. It was revealed when they were each nearing the end of their time on earth that they only ever made love once, being virgins when they met, and that I was the product of that single union. During the last conversation in 1992 with my mother was confirmed by her that, following conception she and my father never had a physical relationship again.” And…”Dorothy, who would have wanted her only child to know the truth about something that mattered so much to her, made this revelation literally on her death bed…”
If true, it is quite conceivable that a dying mother would wish to convey such an intimate secret to her only son on her death bed. It is doubtful, however, that Dorothy intended Manchester to broadcast this to the whole world; apparently with some warped intent of implying that his entrance into this world had been the “sacred result” of some unique conception.
It is perhaps not so surprising, however, that Manchester should so choose to personally shame the memory of his own mother. In his small booklet From Satan To Christ, he adopts a similar tract; only this time describes his own wife’s sexual experiences (in morbid detail) at the hands of a group of Satanists before he “came to the rescue” and converted her to a form of dubious Christianity from her life as a “Satanic Prostitute”.
The book concludes with an almost sickening account of Manchester’s ordinations into Holy Orders. He informs all and sundry that he became a legitimate “bishop” in the Old Catholic Church; although again, conveniently neglects to mention, that the official Old Catholic Church based in Holland, totally deny any knowledge of him. (Perhaps the latter is not surprising considering that Manchester’s only “credentials” here are two mass produced Certificates that he purchased in North London in the early 1990’s for the sake of “Tax Purposes!)
He concludes with an account of how he met and married his second wife, Sarah Jane Crook, and of how she also became involved in Mr. Manchester’s “Old Catholic Church”. There are numerous posed photographs to illustrate this; Sarah looking for all the world as though she is trying to give some validity to some staged fancy dressed party!
But there is one amusing part in the climax of the book … Manchester describes their honeymoon in a top level hotel. Manchester takes a shower, and eventually they both end up in bed but choose to watch the hotel television before snuggling up for the night.
Both are surprised to see the unexpected film that comes on… The Brides of Dracula! Whether they watched it or not, is not made clear. But Manchester does state that the film’s appearance was so unexpected that they both burst out laughing!
Nothing wrong with that perhaps. But to conclude this book so frivolously by introducing a second-rate Hammer Horror movie at such an “important time”, would seem to reflect on the part of its author, an essential ingredient - nay obsession - that continually betrays the main purpose of his “vampiric writings”.
It is not clarified in the text but I’m sure, driven to fresh heights by the prospect of some “unworldly sex”, and a need to remove his “bishops” garb, they watched the film in it’s entirety!
*********************************************************************
David Farrant, First published in Man, Myth and Manchester, Series One, Volume 8
TO HAVE AND TO DECEIVE
MR ‘BISHOP’ SEAN MANCHESTER seems to have flown into one almighty fury lately over a couple of home truths I published on the Internet recently about his first marriage. In fact, these posts were only put up in the first place to set the record straight about allegations Mr. Manchester had been persistently been making publicly about myself; that I was a ‘homosexual’, a ‘Nazi’, an ‘alcoholic’, a drug-taker, a ‘black magician’, and a ‘Satanist’ who indulged in ‘perverted orgies’ and who ‘sacrificed cats’ - all very non-Christian allegations one might be forgiven for thinking from a so-called ‘man of the cloth’! If this was not enough, in-between these numerous allegations were statements publicly posted by Manchester on various websites (invariably under aliases) about my first wife Mary, my second wife Colette (he claimed the latter was only a ‘marriage of convenience’ as, being Australian, it was the only way she could remain in the UK), and various relationships I had had with other female persons, including an allegation about two young females who I had caused to commit suicide after ‘luring them into Satanism and black magic’!
Just what Manchester was trying to achieve by persistently posting up these ‘anonymous’ allegations world-wide is not too clear; I suspect it originates from statements that I made in one or two of my books (maybe, in particular, Beyond The Highgate Vampire) whereby I refuted two of Manchester’s claims to have ‘executed’ two ’real-life’ vampires. One of these (Manchester claimed at the time, and still claims to this day) was the “King Vampire of the Undead” which originally had it’s lair in a secluded vault in Highgate Cemetery but this ’escaped’ after Mancehster discovered the location and - taking it’s coffin with it -retreated to a deserted mansion in nearby Crouch End. Hot on its trail, Manchester and an assistant named ’Arthur’ tracked it down and one morning just after sunrise, dragged the coffin into the over-grown garden, and staked its incumbent through the heart, whereupon the unfortunate creature let out a terrible roar (as if ’from the bowels of hell’) and turned to a mass of slime and viscera in the bottom of its casket, before Manchester incinerated the remains with a can of petrol.
End of the ’Highgate Vampire’? Well not quite! For if this was not enough to make the mind boggle, Manchester was to publicly state shortly afterwards, that he had tracked down a disciple of the ’King Vampire of the Undead’ called ’Lusia’ who had died of leukaemia and buried in a graveyard near his North London home. Manchester entered this graveyard late one night and, after stripping naked and adorned only in a purple make-shift dressing gown, lay in wait for it (her) inside a protective magical circle. Lusia eventually turned up but, after spotting Manchester, promptly changed into a gigantic spider although unable to get to him because of the protective magical circle.
Making a terrible ‘hissing sound’, the spider scurried around the circle but Manchester eventually managed to stake it through the heart (middle?) and set it alight with a flaming torch! He collapsed back into the circle sobbing uncontrollably and the approaching daylight finally revealed the outcome of his handiwork…”It was poor Lusia - no longer the devil’s Undead, but on of God’s true dead. Even as I looked, the years of decay, which had been eluded by her vampire sleep, were returning almost instantaneously. Her mouth dropped, her cheeks fell in and her supple skin became stiff. She had faded to the colour of ash, but a tranquil beauty and profound repose swept over her in death…”! [exclamation mark my own].
I have made it abundantly clear that I believe neither of these fictional accounts of Manchester’s; with even more reason when I learned that ‘Lusia’ was none other than a certain Jacqueline Cooper, in reality Manchester’s common law wife who was sharing a flat with him in Holloway, North London, in 1970.
Perhaps it is because I made my views public(in Beyond The Highgate Vampire and elsewhere) stating quite unequivocally that I did not believe Manchester’s amateurish fiction, that has so infuriated Manchester and caused him to invent more lies about myself or others who happen to agree with me.
Whatever, to set the record straight a little about Manchester’s vicious allegations; in recent times, I decided that perhaps some details of Manchester’s true background should be made public - if for no other reason than to expose him for the fake bishop that he was, and to show his claims to other delusionary titles and positions in Society, to be a total sham; indeed, many of which could be safely relegated to the realms of fiction or be likened to the ravings of some insane hypocrite.
With a view to this, I published on the Internet “’Lord’ Manchester - a past history”; its purpose mainly to discredit Mr. Manchester’s many self-styled credentials and his fictitious claims about the ‘King Vampire of the Undead’ and his true relationship with the ‘giant spider’.
I pointed out that in the late 1960’s, Manchester was living in a small flat on the busy Holloway Road, in North London, with his wife Mary Ryan and two young children, but began an adulterous affair with an attractive blonde girl named Jacqueline Cooper. Manchester’s wife took exception to this, and eventually moved out of the flat taking tow children with her, and was later to name Jacqueline Cooper as a co-Respondent in a divorce Petition she filed against Manchester (which she won) for adultery.
I wrote …
“Unfortunately, Manchester’s fortunes were not going all too well at this time (maybe aggravated by the fact that his small flat in Holloway Road was situated over a Builder’s Merchants - appropriately named “Timber House” - and adjoined a rowdy Irish pub, one can imagine the noise!), Manchester was forces to take up employment as a milkman at a nearby co-op Dept, while his new live-in ‘wife’ (Jacqueline cooper, to be precise), took on a full time job in a local towel factory.
But in only a matter of a few months, Manchester has involved her in a new publicity stunt and persuaded her to pose scantily clad in a church in Islington (which Manchester claimed, had been desecrated by ‘Satanists’) for the News of The World. [N.O.W. January 22nd 1971].
In fact, 1971 was to prove to be a bad year for Sean Manchester. Jacqueline was on the verge of leaving him after beginning to realise that Manchester’s main interest in her centred around involving her in his obsessive publicity stunts; and indeed, she in fact left him in 1972 ; leaving him to contemplate a few happier moments in the solitude of “Timber House”.
Who can really tell what thoughts then ran through the young Manchester’s mind as he sat alone sulking in the dismal flat? The blaring Irish music from the adjacent pub and the cold smell of paint from the shop below could have done nothing to help; but maybe the innermost sounds of two wailing babies coupled with the dwindling rebukes of an irate wife, could have finalised his decision to escape the premises and seek to better his fortunes at a more fitting location.
So with ghostly cries of “adulterer” ringing in his ears, and Jacqueline tucked up safely with somebody else (whom rumour had it at the time, she’d met at the towel factory), the distraught Manchester left the Holloway Road flat. Being temporarily homeless he moved in with his parents who lived in a Council house in nearby Quemerford Road, only a bit later to move into a bequeathed semi-detached house in a New Southgate; a new beginning for a new series of carefully planned publicity stunts which began soon afterwards when Manchester started announcing to the local press and unknowing French magazines that he was a fully-fledged “Lord”!”
Manchester was none too happy; indeed, he took great exception to my revelations - mainly the one in which I had revealed he had been married before and had two children.
In a feeble attempt to discredit this (though at the same time digging the gaping hole I had opened up even deeper), Manchester made public an astonishing declaration, in which he not only claimed that this first marriage had been annulled but that another man was really the father of his two children.
Manchester’s account is really best left to speak for itself (it should be borne in mind that, as usual, Manchester is writing about himself under an alias)…
“Having known Sean Manchester most of my life, I can provide a few facts on this personal matter which Farrant has seen fit to maliciously spread all over the internet. Yes, Sean Manchester did marry somebody in the mid-sixties. They were incompatible and far too young, not unlike Farrant’s first marriage. Consequently they ceased to cohabit after less than a year. Both parties had extra-marital relations almost from the beginning and the wife bore two children with a man living two doors from where she actually resided which was in Middlesex. Sean Manchester remained domicile [sic] in Islington throughout this entire period. The only sure way of achieving a relatively painless and quick divorce in those days, prior to the 1971 Divorce Reform Bill, was for one of the parties to “arrange” an admission of adultery with the other parties solicitors’ enquiry agent. Anything else meant years and years of waiting and his first wife wanted to marry the father of her children which she did in 1971. Unfortunately Sean Manchester’s name had been entered on the birth certificates by her to avoid a costly cross-petition divorce. In other words, had she entered the real father’s name she would have become the guilty party in the divorce. Hence Sean Manchester elected to do the honourable thing and put himself guilty as the guilty party. Both parties were guilty of course, but at least the wife could marry the man she had been seeing from early on at the earliest opportunity. Sean Manchester did not marry for almost another quarter of a century. The divorce was reasonably amicable. This first union was declared invalid by the Christian Church when, at a much later date, Bishop Sean Manchester sought and was granted an annulment.”
The above can be taken as an excellent example of how Manchester tries to distort - nay ‘change’ - any facts or events that might not conveniently suit him; in this instance, almost a desperate attempt to ‘cover his tracks’ in the event his current wife, Sarah Manchester, were ever to discover he had two children by an undisclosed marriage.
In fact, Manchester married his first wife, Mary on a fateful April Fool’s Day in 1967. Their first son was born at The Royal Northern Hospital in March 1968, and a second son conceived shortly afterwards; although by the time he was born, the following March, Mary had moved back to live with her parents. Both sons bear a physical testimony to their paternity. Mary soon began a relationship with a boy who lived nearby, some years her junior. Her divorce for adultery from Manchester having been finalized on June 30th 1971, she married this person in July 1971, and afterwards bore him two children. He also formally adopted Manchester’s two children in 1972. The adoption application stated that: “The father of the infants is Mr. Patrick Sean Manchester whose last known address was 553 Holloway Road, London, N.19. A registered letter was sent there and returned”. It went on to say that Mr. Manchester was liable, by virtue of an Order made at Harrow Court on 7th of May 1969 to contribute £2.50 weekly per child; however, he had not complied with the terms of the maintenance order since 19th of April 1972 when he paid £1 per week for 5 weeks; prior to this he had not paid since April 1970 when he paid £1.25. He could not be found since, though he had given his address as 26 Freegrove Road, Holloway, N7, when a social worker had visited this address, she reported that “Mr. Manchester was unknown to any of the residents.”
Manchester was never granted any annulment by the Christian Church (is is noteworthy that he carefully avoids stating which particular Church this was); unless he really means that he later granted himself one (strictly illegal) under the pathetic auspices of being a bona fide bishop.
© David Farrant first published in Man, Myth and Manchester Monthly, Volume 2 Series 1 ISSN 1744-8514 2004 and is in the public domain.
For Alex, Greenwych and my little anonymous sweetheart.
Thanks for that Alex. Please do re-join on the new Forum, if not now, when you have more free tome. Well, at least join to keep in contact; you don't have to post all the time! So,I look forward to that. Thanks again David.
For Greenwych:
Yes, its funny how he quickly deleted the part about his late mother once he saw my original review on "Stray Ghosts". I wonder why!?
For my little Anonymous Sweetheart:
Just wated to add the ISBN for "Stray Ghosts" review in "Man, Myth and Manchester" No 8. It is: 0 9539481 61. Just to clarify that this as well, is also on public record.
Thanks all of you,
The Not So Anonymous One!
Here is an interesting link for you all.
Note the emails etc.
http://www.independentcatholicalliance.blogspot.com/
Fr Simon, the owner of this blog and Archbishop Kemp are good friends of mine and we are in regular contact with each other via email and telephone and personal letters.
SHORT AND SWEET!!!!
Adoption of the name The Liberal Rite
On 1 January 2007, The Independent Old Catholic Church of the Utrecht Succession adopted as its new official name The Liberal Rite.
http://www.independentoldcatholic.org/news.html
(Once a Priest always a Priest except when you're a defrocked one).
Hi,
So just to clarify, have we got proof that Manchester is a Bogus Bishop or is it all still up in the air?
Cheers,
Alex.
Hi Alex,
I think we always knew it. If you recall, since the nineties I was writing articles to the effect that his claims (to be a bona fide bishop) were not genuine. I asked for evidence of his claims which was never even answered - let alone provided.
It reached the stage when independent research had to be done about the actual Church or Churches that he claimed recognised him. As it turned out, none of these did - and still don't - and to that extent, we now have actual PROOF that his original claims were bogus.
He is most definitely NOT a bona fide bishop, Alex, and this should further help to explain his extended hate campaign against myself here.
You may recall that, in the past, I frequently said that all I need to rely on is the actual Truth. I said (believe it could have been in one of the "Man, Myth and Manchester" publications) that Truth would cut far more deeply than any 'double edged sword' he chose to wield.
And how this has now proved to be factual! But yes, we do now have the actual proof (which is yet another reason he is going so 'balistic' on here!).
I will not publish these findings here at the moment as to do so would be to betray the confidence of others.
But yes, there is now proof that we have that will establish once and for all that he is not - or ever has been - a bona fide bishop.
For now,
David
For Greenwych,
This would obviously need a fuller answer but, without avoid all the important points you made, I think you 'hit the nail on the head' though when you said that all Manchester's propaganda about religious claims to distinction, are really the result of one person sitting behind a personalised computer, and churning out their own publicity. We aare talking about Mr. Manchester himself here, of course, who invents stories about his own imagined 'religious status' by using standard aliases on the Net.
His 'claims to distinction' are invariably made ABOUT himself BY himself.
Is it little wonder that people have long since to disbelieve such a fiasco??!??
Yes. Me Again.
The Not So Anonymous One!
"... his two children might just have well been “non-existent”." - David Farrant (February 19, 2007 8:43 PM)
That's a bit of a faux pas on your part, Farrant.
What became of YOUR two children with Mary?
Born in 1967 and 1969, Jamie and Danny, your two sons - remember them, Farrant? - were unsupported by you and were never visited by you when Mary left you in August 1969.
The poor girl married someone else eventually so that she did not have to rely any longer on the help of her parents in Southampton.
At least the man she married supported YOUR children, Farrant, even if you didn't. Not once did you send money as you were supposed to.
Why do you mention other people's non-existent kids in your fabrications when you have two of your own who you never refer to. Is this a form of transference to lessen the guilt you feel about completely abandoning them?
Your so-called autobiographical booklet(s) makes no mention of Jamie and Danny. Why is that?
Yet these same autobiographical accounts invent situations and relationships that are pure fantasy. Strange how you only remembered these things decades afterwards.
So why have you ignored Jamie Farant and Danny Farrant's existence for so long? Are you not their real father or something? I read you're impotent (remember Martine de Sacy and the "Casanova Witch is Failure as a Lover" article in the News of the World).
And, of course, Mary ran off for six months with "Hutchinson" in 1968. Something else you never mention and your autobiographical accounts gloss over as if it did not occur. But it did, didn't it, Farrant. And you know it did. Mind you, how can anyone blame her for running off with the milkman?
Perhaps we'll hear the truth one day, but it won't be from you, Farrant. You're memory is not only very selective, it is also totally distorted.
Thanks David/Greenwych/Anonymous,
Well done in getting to the bottom of this, you all have more patience than I have!
If Mr Manchester is going to air his dirty washing in public then he is going to hear a few home truths. If he doesn't like that then he should keep his beak out.
Regards,
Alex.
"... a man certainly ensconced in a delusionary world of impossible political utopias, probably enhanced by a long time usage of cannabis." - David Farrant (February 19, 2007 8:43 PM)
Farrant's oldest and closest friend is Nava Grunberg, a chronic alcoholic who smokes cannabis every day of her life. She is quite open about the fact that she smokes dope and is seldom, if ever, found sober and straight. Many have witnessed her wobbling about outside the off-license in Highgate High Street which is the nearest supply of alcohol to where she lives.
Most people know that Farrant has always been a drunkard, but fewer people have realised - though many have guessed - just how much reliance he places in cannabis of which his friend residing in Hampstead Lane has no short supply.
Smoking dope explains an awful lot about Farrant's behaviour over the last four decades when you think about it.
Farrant denies it, of course, because, unlike alcohol, it's illegal to possess such substances in the UK. And, let's face it, he's seen enough of the inside of a prison cell to be scared stiff of the prospect of another spell at Her Majesty's pleasure.
Hi Mr. Manchester,
Perhaps you would care to tell us a little about your own two sons Heath and Dean.
What a tremendous father you turned out to be!
"I don't know where [anonymous] got the 'hospital porter' bit from. Probably a similiar distortion from the early 1970's when I was going out (OK having an affair with!) a live-in nurse at a North London hospital. True, I used to 'unofficially' spend the night there occasionally, but I didn't work there!" - David Farrant (February 19, 2007 7:04 PM)
I'll tell Farrant where I got it from. His own mouth!
Never mind the court records of his appeal when he was in remand at Brixton Prison in August 1970.
Never mind the innumerable newspaper reports and also court records where it was stated that he worked briefly as a hospital porter at Barnet General Hospital from where he stole sheets etc.
You can hear Farrant himself, interviewed in 1978 and now available on a CD, explaining exactly why he took the job as a hospital porter. It only lasted a couple of weeks or so, but he was employed as a hospital porter. Thereafter he remained permanently unemployed. How do I know? Because someone at the exchange where he drew his dole down the years has attested to this fact. This person is genuine as he/she has been able to reveal much else about Farrant which I can't here because of data protection laws. But I know for a fact that Farrant has been on state benefits since his release from prison, and it was much the same story before he was jailed. He has worked no more than a month in total since being made a bankrupt in 1969 and such employment was all in the following year. Another job which didn't lasy five minutes was as a London Underground railway guard.
The recording of Farrant confirming he worked as a hospital porter and why is on a CD titled The Black Witch Project that can be obtained from Gothic Press at the link:
www.gothicpress.freeserve.co.uk/Bookshop.htm
David has not mentioned un-existent kids. I can tell you this much because I have obtained Court papers regarding the matter. If anyone wants to see these then please email me at dfplcatherine@yahoo.co.uk and I will send you a copy. Also what I'd like to know is why Mr. Manchester hasn't mentioned HIS kids anywhere in his online autobiography or in any of his sordid books.
I obtained them from one of Manchester's kid's at the time although he wished to remain anonymous because he doesn't and didn't want anything to do with his own father. Now why should that surprise anyone?
And I can also say with certainty that David did indeed support his own family until they were old enough. (How would Mr. Manchester know any other way)?
Mr. Manchester didn't even pay the £2:50 weekly payment for each child and could not be found at the time.
"Anonymous said...
"... a man certainly ensconced in a delusionary world of impossible political utopias, probably enhanced by a long time usage of cannabis." - David Farrant (February 19, 2007 8:43 PM)
Farrant's oldest and closest friend is Nava Grunberg, a chronic alcoholic who smokes cannabis every day of her life. She is quite open about the fact that she smokes dope and is seldom, if ever, found sober and straight. Many have witnessed her wobbling about outside the off-license in Highgate High Street which is the nearest supply of alcohol to where she lives."
I've noticed that whatever, David or any of us say in the matter, you, Mr. Manchester have to come up with the same story regarding one of us.
Besides which if you are not Mr. Manchester then why do you know so much about David's best friend and claim to know so much about David's kids etc etc and more to the point why do you deny your own??????
And also I can confirm that David has never smoked cannabis in his life. And again can I ask Mr. Manchester where he has got this information from???? How does Mr. Manchester know any of this considering that he has not been anywhere near David for the past four decades. Who is his friend in Hampstead Lane, come on Mr. Manchester, name some names, give proper evidence of where you are getting your information from. You do realize that what you are saying is slander, unless you can provide proper evidence.
"David [Farrant] must have worked at some point as according to his nibs he has been a hospital porter and a tobacconist. Today David works as a writer." - Catherine Fearnley (February 19, 2007 6:31 PM)
"Just for the record, I never worked as a 'tobacconist'. I bought two very expensive shops in Highgate in 1967, yes. But these were really for profit and my first wife who managed one of them." - David Farrant (February 19, 2007 7:04 PM)
Farrant works as a writer!!! Don't make me laugh. His malicious scribblings in self-published pamphlets issued from his attic bed-sitting room in Muswell Hill don't equate to being a writer. They make him a thoroughly nasty piece of work and someone with an obsessive compulsive disorder. Note the difference.
It would be correct to say that Farrant never worked as a "tobacconist," largely because Farrant has never worked in his life, excluding a couple of weeks as a porter and similar unskilled employment which lasted no more than a couple of days.
Farrant claimed to have inherited the small tobacconist shop in Southwood Avenue N6 along with the flat above where he and his wife, Mary, lived. But his German step-mother took it off him and he has resented her ever since, even to the extent of hating all Germans.
It's complicated and there isn't space to go into all the detail even if anyone was that interested, but neither Farrant nor his wife worked in the tobaccanist shop which belonged to his step-mother. Farrant did remain in the flat above, however, until 1969 when he was evicted. All this he confirms in interviews now available on CD.
For his 21st birthday his father, Don Farrant, gave his son another shop and some money which Mary Farrant turned into a Baby Boutique and used the money to buy stock.
Mary worked on her own in this shop while Farrant spent all his time visiting pubs with hangers-on - all after a free drink - and buying exotic birds, parrots and such like, for which he had an obsession. Most of these birds died in his care.
Mary Farrant has stated under oath how she worked while her husband squandered what she earned on booze. When he ran out of money during the day he would pop into the Baby Boutique and take cash out of the till, clearing it and leaving it empty, and then return to the pub and his "friends."
She also stated how their flat was used as a hotel by his "friends." Once the cash ran out, so did the so-called "friends," needless to say.
Farrant had to find another way to attract attention.
This came in early 1970 when he faked stories for the press.
In the previous year he declared himself bankrupt and was evicted from the marital flat in Southwood Avenue. Mary went home to her parents with their two sons, Jamie and Danny.
The next time she saw her husband it was across the floor of the Central Criminal Court where Farrant stood accused of a plethora of ghastly crimes.
It took Farrant barely a couple of years to squander money and a business given him by his father, to be evicted into the street, and to be declared bankrupt.
He moved into the coal cellar of the man who had run off with Mary for six months in 1968. Here he would fester for the next year when he was arrested in August at night in Highgate Cemetery by police.
The rest, as they say, is history.
VERY 'CHRISTIAN' COMMENTS
Well, Mr. Manchester, you really are showing your true colours now! As I said in the introduction of my books "Man, Myth and Mnchester"
QUOTE: ". . . a man so eaten up with hatred that it has caused him to attempt to re-write the course of history".
That just about sums it up.
The one big difference is, Mr. Manchester, that I have never denied having children (not two as you say, but three - you forgot the little girl, although she's well grown up now. On the other hand, you are claiming thatyour own two children are not really yours, even though one of them has since been in contact with us - such hyporcrisy.
It is really not my business if other people drink or smoke cannabis. Let them! Personally, I never smoke the stuff, if I did I'd admit it. What's wrong with that? The red Indians were smoking it centuries ago.
Unlike yourself, Mr. Manchester, when my first wife left me, she claimed maintenance which I paid for well over 4 years until she got re-married. (That's all on Court record). You, on the other hand, Mr. Manchester, only paid a pittance (5 or 6 weeks or so) before you 'did a runner'. THATS also on Court records ["Mr. Manchester could not be found" etc]and furthermore, I have a copy.
Do I drink? Yes. Why not? But that does not make me an alcoholic as you're trying to implying.
I have said it before, Mr Manchester, you are a compulsive and habitual liar
It has become such a mental affliction with you, that you wouldn,t know Truth if it stared you in the face.
For now,
The Blatantly Obvious NOT Anonymous One!
Well said Catherine.
We have to remember that these days Mr Manchester struggles a bit. He's out of his depth and will say anything to try and deflect attention from his own shortcomings. His asinine outpourings are the product of a diseased mind.
Alex.
"Anyway, I still don't believe in blood sucking Vampires, which is the main thing!" - Alex Berger [February 19, 2007 8:11 PM]
How extraordinary of Alex Berger to come onto the internet and declare to the world that he does not believe in vampires.
That must have taken quite some courage! And aren't we all greatly relieved to learn that Alex Berger doesn't believe in vampires?
But how does that make Alex Berger any different to 99.9% of the remainder of the population? And why did Alex Berger feel such an urgent need to share this boring fact with the rest of the world?
Is Alex berger going to write a little booklet on how not to believe in vampires in the face of a world rushing around with stakes and crosses at the ready?
You'll find that Farrant has already beaten you to it. But there was a time when David Farrant once claimed to believe in such things as vampires (even if it was only for publicity).
Farrant was a figure of fun in and around Highgate in the late 1960s and the early 1970s up until his incarceration when his attention-seeking got out of control. Nobody viewed his publicity stunts as anything more than foolishness to attract attention to himself. There was only him. He had no members and only one associate in the form of John Pope, the self-styled head of the Temples of Satan. Though also a publicist and feeble-minded, Pope was genuinely involved in the occult. Farrant was not and never has been.
Farrant's "vampire hunting" was no more than a stunt. He appeared at Clerkenwell Court in August 1970 where he was charged with being in an enclosed area for an unlawful purpose. The magistrate was obviously obliged to acquit Farrant of that charge because it was obvious to all present, not least defending solictor Mr Jeffrey Bayes, that Highgate Cemetery cannot be described as "an enclosed area." This technicality secured Farrant's release in 1970. However, we should also remind ourselves of what the magistrate, Mr J D Purcell, said when Farrant first appeared before him whilst on remand at Brixton prison: "You should be seen by a doctor."
Farrant consented to providing tape-recorded interviews, photographic records, and filmed reconstructions of his alleged "vampire hunting" which was nothing more than a pathetic means to gain self-publicity.
We are mindful of the interview he gave the BBC "24 Hours" television team transmitted on 15 October 1970. Farrant was invited to make a contribution because of what he was doing on the night of 17 August 1970 when police discovered him prowling about in Highgate Cemetery with a crudely made cross and a stake. The police had been anonymously tipped off by one of Farrant's collaborators in order to guarantee maximum publicity in the media. Without an arrest Farrant would barely make the back page of his local newspaper. The arrest assured national coverage and a television interview.
What Farrant reconstructed for the BBC television programme showed him going through the actions of "stalking a vampire" at the time of his co-ordinated arrest. This footage was in relation to why he was arrested and nothing else. The programme itself was titled "Vampires" and when asked about his "vampire hunting" Farrant, of course, did not say, "I don't believe in vampires," far from it; he went along with the notion he had given to all and sundry that he was in the graveyard to try and impale the Highgate Vampire.
On the day after the BBC transmission, Farrant appeared in a newspaper which showed photographs of him supposedly stalking a vampire with his cross and stake late at night in Highgate Cemetery. Barrie Simmons, the newspaper's journalist, joined Farrant for a "midnight date with Highgate's Vampire" as recorded in the London Evening News, 16 October 1970:
"I joined a macabre hunt among the desecrated graves and tombs for the vampire of Highgate Cemetery. ... David Farrant, 24, was all set, kitted out with all the gear required by any self-respecting vampire hunter. Clutched under his arm, in a Sainsbury's carrier bag, he held the tools of his trade. There was a cross made out of two bits of wood tied together with a shoelace and a stake to plunge through the heart of the beast. Vampire hunting is a great art. There is no point in just standing around waiting for the monster to appear. It must be stalked. So we stalked. Cross in one hand to ward off the evil spirits, stake in the other, held at the ready. Farrant stalked among the vaults, past the graves, in the bushes and by the walls. When we had finished he started stalking all over again."
In 1987, however, Farrant admitted being responsible for a "hoax" in a desperate attempt to garner some publicty during a particularly fallow period. The newspaper in question was the Finchley Advertiser which on 30 July 1987 (based on an interview with Farrant) claimed that he started "rumours of a vampiric haunting" in 1970 (which we know is not true) concluding with these words: "Mr Farrant supported the vampire theory in the local and national press, but now concedes the idea was 'just pure fiction'."
As recently as 1987 Farrant was still claiming that he originally believed in and indeed supported the vampire theory put forward by the British Occult Society/Vampire Research Society.
We do not have to take the Finchley Advertiser's word for it, of course, or even Farrant's word; we have the archive photographs of him stalking the vampire with his rosary, crucifix, holy water, large cross and sharpened wooden stake. We have the taped interviews that Farrant so kindly provided at the time. And, finally, we have the BBC television footage of Farrant reconstucting his lone vampire hunt which led to his arrest by police on the night of 17 August 1970.
Farrant's part in the vampire saga was indeed an elaborate hoax engineered purely for the sake of his own self-aggrandisement, but that does not mean that others investigating the phenonemon from as far back as early 1967 (a time when Farrant was not even resident in the UK) were anything other than genuine.
After discovering the head of the Highgate investigation through television programmes of 1970 where Seán Manchester was captioned “President, British Occult Society,” Farrant slowly began fraudulently adopting this title as his own. Later he described himself as being not just the “President” but also the “Founder” of the British Occult Society. All of which was hotly denied by the Society, needless to say, who were quick to point out that their organisation was founded in 1860.
When Farrant appeared at the Old Bailey in 1974 he still described himself this way. Hence court proceedings were quoted with the prefix “self-styled” by newspaper editors and media journalists. In 1983, however, Farrant decided to amend the usurped nomenclature to “British Psychic and Occult Society.” He had spoken to the press about his “thousands of followers” (Hornsey Journal, 23 November 1979), and even went so far as to claim a number as high as 20,000 (Finchley Press, 22 February 1980).
The bona fide BOS president was quoted in the Finchley Press report of 22 February 1980:
“On Monday, Seán Manchester, president of the British Occult Society, disclaimed any connection between Mr Farrant and the society. … [Seán] Manchester believes that Mr Farrant’s activities — including the libel action [which Farrant lost] — have been publicity-seeking.”
This was Seán Manchester's assessment ten years earlier when he first made the acquaintance of Farrant who had written to a local newspaper, the Hampstead & Highgate Express, with his “Some nights I walk past the gates of Highgate Cemetery” letter, published on 6 February 1970. Farrant’s letter concluded with the frank admission: “I have no knowledge in this field and I would be interested to hear if any other readers have seen anything of this nature.”
On Mystery Magazine's online forum, 7 October 2003, Farrant wrote:
“Yes. I certainly said ‘I have no knowledge in this field’. But I was referring to common stories circulating at the time that the entity or apparition must be a ‘blood sucking vampire’. I did not accept this at the time ~ and still don't. Many people responded about the ‘ghost side of things’ without feeling obliged to enter into meaningless correspondence about a ‘blood-sucking’ vampire. So yes, it is true that I ‘have no knowledge’ in the field of blood-sucking vampires. How could I? I do not even accept that these exist.”
The arch-fabricator had forgotten about this when three years later on 23 April 2006 he published the following on writingup.com:
"The Vampire Research Society republished my ‘original’ letter to the Ham and High on February 6th 1970. Problem is, an extra line has somehow found its way in to the effect of me supposedly saying . . . 'I have no knowledge in this field . . .', etc. Well, luckily, I happen to have the original paper in front of me (another original also being on record at the British Library) and the line outlined in capitols has been erroneously inserted; one can only assume by the VRS."
Farrant then proceeds to publish his letter from January 1970 minus the last line which is clearly visible to anyone visiting the archive of the Hampstead & Highgate Express or indeed the British Library. Once again, Farrant is shown to be a falsifier of the facts.
Farrant's fraudulent claim that he was somehow part of a serious investigation into the supernatural goings on at Highgate Cemetery are exposed to the light of day when anyone who actually knew him at the time is heard. His current girlfriend, of course, was not born when these matters came under investigation, but Farrant's first wife was around and she 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:
“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.” (The Sun, 21 June 1974)
The concensus view thirty years and more ago was that David Farrant amounted to nothing more than a lone publicity-seeker in search of a convenient bandwagon to jump on. This widely held opinion was arrived at due to the plethora of first-hand evidence from his contemporaries who knew his claims to be bogus. His publicity stunts nevertheless landed him in jail with a prison sentence of four years and eight months.
“Farrant was a fool. Fascinated by witchcraft … he couldn’t keep his interests to himself. He was a blatant publicist. He told this newspaper of his activities, sent photographs and articles describing his bizarre activities.” (Peter Hounam, deputy editor, Hornsey Journal, 16 July 1974)
"Mr P J Bucknell, prosecuting, said Mr Farant 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, reporting on Farrant's next court appearance following his orchestrated arrest, this time in a churchyard, where witchcraft had supplanted vampires as his vehicle for publicity.)
Soon after his brief stint as a lone vampire hunter, Farrant hung up his cross and stake and replaced them with pentagrams and ritual daggers. This led to more arrests and a stiff prison sentence from which he has perhaps understandably never fully recovered.
Hi David
Everyone likes a drink now and then including myself (you should have seen me at our Churche's annual Christmas dance) One could say that I got slightly fresh and not only that but so did everyone else there. It doesn't mean that we are alcholics. It just means that we enjoy letting our hair down every now and then. What is Mr. Manchester's problem with that. I've heard that one Christmas he went to a boozy do with plenty of wine and Roses. That is what people do at these sort of parties usually.
With regards to Cannabis who cares as you say David the Red Indians smoked it and no doubt many other people have too. I recall that plenty of well known scholars in the Victorian age smoked Opium, such as Arthur Conan Doyle, Charles Dickens, Edgar Allan Poe and if I'm not mistaken, I think that even Lord Byron had a dabble. The very Lord Byron who Mr. Manchester claims to have such fondness of. Not that I've anything against Lord Byron, indeed he's my favourite poet and I really enjoy going to Newstead Abbey. In fact, Lord Byron had a very dubious life-style. But I won't go into that here as that is for another blog.
How can Manchester deny his own kids, that is completely disgusting and to think that he claims he's a man of the cloth. He didn't even declare this when he was 'ordained' and therefore invalidated himself before he even started. And this we've got evidence straight from the horses mouth. (figure of speach).
But how does that make Alex Berger any different to 99.9% of the remainder of the population? And why did Alex Berger feel such an urgent need to share this boring fact with the rest of the world?
I wanted David to know that my lack of posts recently was not to do with any change of opinion on the basic facts surrounding the "Vampire". Sorry if I bored you Mr. Manchester!
Alex.
A FATAL SLIP!
At last. Mr Manchester has made a fatal slip!
If anybody reads back just a little, the will see Mr. Manchester referring to a take recording I let him make of myself in 1978. (He later 'cut' and doctored this take to pieces - but that's another story).
Now, referring to this recording (which Mr. Manchester recorded himself, let us remember) he says here . . . "I'll tell Farrant where I got it from. His own mouth!"
Here is a blatant admission that it is Mr. Manchester himself writing all this.
But no wonder he can't write in the first person as this would totally betray his true nastiness.
Well, he has now admitted it. And this really IS from his own mouth!
The Not So Anonymous One
Why do you keep copying and pasting the same old rubbish Mr. Manchester. Can you not come up with anything new about ourselves. Why do you rely on 30 odd yr old newspaper cuttings. Do you really think that you can get the better of us by doing this. You really are diverting the issue are you not?
You will not give any direct answers to our questions regarding your kids. You will not give any direct answers regarding your failed marriage. You will not give any direct answers regarding Highgate Cemetery and how you broke into vaults without permission. You will not give direct answers regarding your so called Church. And we know from another source that you only had 27 people who put their name down claiming that you would be a reputable 'bishop'.
Where is your Church, What time are the Services, Which part of the Country is your Church, why have you got no congregation (which really doesn't come as no surprise). Why do you deny any knowledge of being in contact with the Liberal Rite movement when we've quite clearly put evidence on this board and again all anyone has to do is email me.
You Mr. Manchester are a out and out liar in the highest degree.
I'm going to print these last few pages and I'm going to post to your Superior. I'm also saving this for Court. Are you now proud of youself Mr. Manchester.
Well, I've printed these off for today's date anyway, and they are going to Mr. Manchester's superior this very afternoon. I'm sure that they will make pleasant reading for him. Mr. Manchester is really digging himself deeper and deeper into early retirement if not his own grave. Care to carry on Mr. Manchester.
"Well, I've printed these off for today's date anyway, and they are going to Mr. Manchester's superior this very afternoon." - Catherine Fearnley (February 20, 2007 1:04 PM)
1. I'm not Sean Manchester.
2. Sean Manchester does not have a "superior." He is, according to my understanding of these things, primate of his own jurisdiction and primate's do not have superior's in the autocephalous Old Catholic churches.
3. Why do you consider anything to do with Sean Manchester (and I am not he) and his beliefs any your business?
"David has not mentioned un-existent kids." - Catherine Fearnley (February 20, 2007 11:57 AM)
Please explain how one mentions "non-existent kids"? If they don't exist he cannot mention the. But they do. He has lied about paying maintenance. He never has paid anything and was drawing dole at the time so couldn't in any case. The man just lies in his teeth!
"I obtained them from one of Manchester's kid's at the time." - Catherine Fearnley (February 20, 2007 11:57 AM)
You ask me (and I am not Manchester) to name some names. How about you naming the "kid" you "obtained" documents from?
That's shut you up.
"How does [anonymous] know any of this considering that he has not been anywhere near David for the past four decades. Who is his friend in Hampstead Lane, come on [anonymous], name some names." - Catherine Fearnley (February 20, 2007 11:57 AM)
Actually, I've never been near Farrant full stop. Thank goodness. But if someone hadn't been near him for "the past four decades" that would mean not since 1967.
Why do you always talk such rubbish?
I've already identified the person in Hampstead Lane who is Farrant's longest serving "supporter" (her own self-description) who in 1969/70 was Farrant's girlfriend (along with a fat teenager called Claire). Her name, once again, is Nava Grunberg.
She visited Farrant in his manky coal cellar beneath "Hutchinson's" flat in Archway Road.
Claire, on the other hand, often stayed overnight in the coal cellar with Farrant. She was usually so drunk that the state of the coal hole didn't bother her.
How do I know these things?
I have spoken to the people who do know because they were there at the time and have heard the recorded interviews of "Hutchinson" and Farrant, amongst others.
"Now, referring to this recording (which Mr. Manchester recorded himself, let us remember) he says here . . . 'I'll tell Farrant where I got it from. His own mouth!' " - David Farrant (February 20, 2007 12:33 PM)
That's correct. I heard it from Farrant's own mouth on the CD of him being interviewed in 1978. I daresay many people have heard it from Farrant's own mouth in a similar way.
That is where I got confirmation of the fact that Farrant was a hospital porter, albeit briefly, in 1970. I heard it from his own mouth when listening to the 1978 interview recording which is available on CD.
This particular CD is called The Highgate Vampire and can be obtained from Gothic Press at:
www.gothicpress.freeserve.co.uk/Bookshop.htm
heard it from Farrant's own mouth on the CD of him being interviewed in 1978. I daresay many people have heard it from Farrant's own mouth in a similar way.
But we all know that this "recording" is a total fake. It is so heavily dubbed and spliced as to be barely recognisable. David's words were alduterated to serve the mean-spirited and nasty agenda of Manchester.
If you're not Sean Manchester then you are certainly a fool for believing him. Either way I suggest that you crawl back behind the net curtains and leave us alone.
Alex.
Due to the lack of colour scheme on this blog, my comments will be in capitals.
February 20, 2007 1:04 PM
Anonymous said...
"Well, I've printed these off for today's date anyway, and they are going to Mr. Manchester's superior this very afternoon." - Catherine Fearnley (February 20, 2007 1:04 PM)
1. I'm not Sean Manchester.
YES YOU ARE AS YOU YOURSELF HAVE MADE A COMPLETE SLIP UP ON HERE
2. Sean Manchester does not have a "superior." He is, according to my understanding of these things, primate of his own jurisdiction and primate's do not have superior's in the autocephalous Old Catholic churches.
MR MANCHESTER DOES HAVE A SUPERIOR BUT I AM NOT NAMING NAMES ON HERE.
3. Why do you consider anything to do with Sean Manchester (and I am not he) and his beliefs any your business?
WHY BECAUSE MR. MANCHESTER MADE THEM MY BUSINESS, IF HE HADN'T HAVE CONTACTED ME IN THE FIRST PLACE THEN I WOULD NOT HAVE EVEN HEARD OF THE STUPID IDIOT. AND AS FOR HIS BELIEFS HAS MR. MANCHESTER GOT ANY BECAUSE HE DOESN'T BEHAVE IN A VERY CHRISTIAN LIKE WAY.
February 20, 2007 1:48 PM
Anonymous said...
"David has not mentioned un-existent kids." - Catherine Fearnley (February 20, 2007 11:57 AM)
Please explain how one mentions "non-existent kids"? If they don't exist he cannot mention the. But they do. He has lied about paying maintenance. He never has paid anything and was drawing dole at the time so couldn't in any case. The man just lies in his teeth!
DAVID HAS NOT LIED ABOUT PAYING MAINTENANCE AND BESIDES WHICH HOW WOULD YOU KNOW IF YOU ARE NOT MR. MANCHESTER AND HOW WOULD YOU KNOW ANYWAY WERE YOU INVOLVED WITH THE SITUATION AT THE TIME.
I WAS REFERRING TO MR. MANCHESTER'S KIDS AT THE TIME IF YOU READ MY POST CORRECTLY. MR. MANCHESTER CLAIMS THAT HIS OWN KIDS ARE NON-EXISTENT
"I obtained them from one of Manchester's kid's at the time." - Catherine Fearnley (February 20, 2007 11:57 AM)
I OBTAINED THE DOCUMENTS FROM ONE OF HIS KIDS WHO WISHES TO REMAIN ANONYMOUS AND IT'S NO WONDER DEALING WITH SUCH AN EVIL POMPOUS PRICK LIKE MANCHESTER.
February 20, 2007 1:58 PM
Anonymous said...
"How does [anonymous] know any of this considering that he has not been anywhere near David for the past four decades. Who is his friend in Hampstead Lane, come on [anonymous], name some names." - Catherine Fearnley (February 20, 2007 11:57 AM)
Actually, I've never been near Farrant full stop. Thank goodness. But if someone hadn't been near him for "the past four decades" that would mean not since 1967.
YOU HAVE BEEN FULLY IN CONTACT WITH DAVID. IT WAS YOU YOURSELF WHO SAID THAT YOU HAD NOT BEEN NEAR HIM FOR THE PAST DECADES READ YOUR OWN POST AGAIN AND STOP TWISTING WORDS TO SUIT YOUR OWN AGENDA.
Why do you always talk such rubbish?
WHY DO YOU TALK EVEN FURTHER RUBBISH.
I've already identified the person in Hampstead Lane who is Farrant's longest serving "supporter" (her own self-description) who in 1969/70 was Farrant's girlfriend (along with a fat teenager called Claire). Her name, once again, is Nava Grunberg.
YOU MAY HAVE ALREADY IDENTIFIED NAVA AND CLAIR BUT YOU HAVE NOT STATED YOU DO NOT KNOW THESE PEOPLE, INDEED I AM SURE THAT YOU DO AND HAVE DONE FOR AGES SEEING AS YOU ARE MR. MANCHESTER. IF YOU DID NOT KNOW THESE PEOPLE THEN YOU WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO INSULT THEM THE WAY YOU ARE DOING.
She visited Farrant in his manky coal cellar beneath "Hutchinson's" flat in Archway Road.
AGAIN HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT SHE VISITED DAVID?
Claire, on the other hand, often stayed overnight in the coal cellar with Farrant. She was usually so drunk that the state of the coal hole didn't bother her.
How do I know these things?
I have spoken to the people who do know because they were there at the time and have heard the recorded interviews of "Hutchinson" and Farrant, amongst others.
NO YOU HAVE NOT SPOKEN TO ANYONE BECAUSE YOU ARE MR.MANCHESTER.
AND NO YOU HAVE NOT SHUT ANY OF US UP BECAUSE THE MORE YOU KEEP DOING AND POSTING ON HERE THE MORE WE ARE GOING TO KEEP ON ANSWERING YOUR FUTILE NONSENSE.
On another note you still have not answered a single question that we have put to you Mr. Manchester and why? For the simple reason you can't. And anyway it is you yourself who claim never to have been inloved with David since the day the silly saga started. Maybe not on this board but you certainly have on others. You can't have your cake and eat it at the same time. There is so much crap on here it's hard to keep tabs on who is saying what. If there was a better system with these boards it would make life a little easier.
THE REAL PHONEY NAZIS
IT WAS in October 1977 that one of Manchester’s escapades with the Press went badly wrong, and an exclusive story in which he claimed to have ‘uncovered’ a subversive organisation, was shown to be an elaborate hoax. In fact, Manchester had approached the Sunday People claiming to have uncovered a secret and sinister Nazi organisation called The League of Imperial Fascists who he said (and claimed he could ‘prove’) were bent on ‘taking over the country’. He claimed this organisation was run by a Nazi fanatic, known only to his followers as ‘The Commander’. But it gets better…
As evidence to support his story, Manchester sent to the Sunday People a set of photographs portraying two people dressed in Nazi uniforms and another (in a similar guise) of somebody he called ‘The Commander’.
Now, according to Manchester, had had managed to ‘infiltrate’ the Group which was how he had come by the photographs; but the Sunday People became suspicious when he failed to provide proof of anyone’s identity. (After all, it was reasoned, that as a matter of public interest - which this appeared to be - and that as he had initially approached the newspaper ‘in the public good’ he should at least have been prepared to disclose the names of people that he claimed posed such a danger to Society).
But the Sunday People were not to be so easily taken in, and they decided to do some checks of their own on Manchester’s highly suspicious claims; and after a full investigation - which involved interviewing and secretly tape-recording several people - they discovered the true identity of the three ‘real Nazis’ portrayed in Manchester’s photographs…
It transpired, that the first of these was a long-standing acquaintance of Manchester’s called John Pope who, when confronted by the Sunday People about hailing himself as a ‘fully fledged Nazi’, quickly admitted that the whole thing had been a hoax instigated by Manchester himself, who had persuaded him to dress up in Nazi costume to aid an article he was writing.
“This was all Sean’s idea”, Pope stressed. “I have not even heard of the League of Imperial Fascists. I want nothing to do with the resurrection of Hitler. But he made me dress up as a Nazi recruiting officer to help him with a good story.”
Pope said much more which was secretly recorded. But his final comment to the People really summed it all up… “He conned me.” (‘He’ as in Manchester).
The other person portrayed in the photographs Manchester submitted, was a young blonde girl also similarly decked-out in Nazi Uniform and described as a dedicated follower of this sinister Organisation. She however, quickly ‘went to ground’ when she learned that the Sunday People were on her tail… which was maybe just as well, considering she was a young girlfriend of Manchester’s called Katrina whom he used to escort regularly to a local Highgate pub!
But it was the identity of the mysterious ‘Commander’ that most interested the Sunday People, For, as events unfolded, it was discovered that the photograph of the sinister looking ‘Commander’ was no less than Sean Manchester himself, posing on the stairway of his Holloway flat some 9 years earlier!
Needless to say, the result was a sensational expose of Manchester by Sunday People, who openly accused him of being a ‘faker’ and a ‘liar’. His reputation was in ruins, but for reasons best known to himself, Manchester decided against taking a libel action against the Sunday People.
Things moved slowly for Sean Manchester after this, although in the years that followed - and due mainly to increasing pressure from people who simply didn’t believe his desperate denials that he was one and the same as the ‘Commander’ - Manchester finally volunteered the identity of the mysterious Commander. (Well of sorts)… His real name was ‘Byrne’ and he was operating covertly from a ‘secret cell’ in Dublin.
A classic Machiavellian response from our unrepentant hero. Some would say a Freudian slip as the word ‘Byrne’ sounds uncannily like ‘Byron’!
David Farrant,
Article first published in Man, Myth and Manchester Series 1 Volume 4
ISBN 09539481 10
For Alex,
Oh. Its Mr. Manchester all right, Alex; you only have to listen to his obsessive trivialities.
Regarding that interview that I granted Manchester, you are right, that tape has been well and truly doctored. This is merely a part of Mr. Manchester’s malicious ‘black propaganda’ campaign – propaganda tricks that he probably picked up when he was canvassing for the National Front Party back in 1969/70.
Even a child could tell that tape has been deliberately cut; you can hear the incessant ‘clicks’ where whole sentences or sections have been cut out.
I don’t want to waste time justifying the nonsense; but rest assured, Mr. Manchester would soon produce the original tape if it could prove I was lying. Of course, he won’t. And almost certainly never will.
Just as a couple of basic examples:
I remember going into long details about how I was innocent of the two ‘Highgate Cemetery’ charges and how the police had fabricated about these. ALL CUT FROM THE TAPE.
I remember explaining the differences between white and black magic and how I had never been involved in Satanism. ALL CUT FROM THE TAPE.
I also remember going into great details about Wicca and how this had nothing to do with Satanism or black magic. I explained that ‘Satan’ was originally the ‘Light Bringer’ in the Old Religion but had been identified with the devil by the early Christian Church.
Again, ALL CUT FROM THE TAPE.
I remember talking about many modern Wiccan groups and how they were not regarded as serious by genuine adherents of Wicca and I explained why.
Once again ALL CUT FROM THE TAPE.
And there was much, much more.
The tapes I have, on the other hand, are totally genuine; probably even more so as Mr. Manchester did not realise that he was being recorded. (Which also explains why he can be heard using foul language on many of these recordings).
Talk about one unholy hypocrite! But then, I suppose it just goes to prove how desperate he now is becoming.
For the moment,
The No Longer Anonymous One!
Oh dear! That's another huge slip you've made, Mr. Manchester.
You mntion Clair and Nava but seem to forget that both these people know you; at any rate, knew you from way back.
Both girls witnessed you drinking in The Prince of Wales pub in Highgate DRINKING WITH MYSELF throughout late 1969 through most of 1970.
In the case of Nava, she saw you with myself on countless occasions after that and she distinctly recalls being photographed by yourself with myself You were trying to persuade me to kiss her if you remember, but she refused as she didn't trust you with any photographs like that. The latter was at the house in Archway Road in the late autumn of 1969. There were many other occasions after that but the last one was in 1984 when you came to my flat unexpectedly one Sunday morning. We were in another room after she had stayed the night. I asked you to wait in the kitchen and I sent her in to make you some tea. Meanwhile, I switched on the tape recorder and I have a recording of about 15 minutes of you speaking to her in the kitchen before I eventually came in.
Whoops. Another massive slip, Sean!
The Totally No Longer The Anonymous One!
David Farrant is still unwisely dredging up the notorious Sunday People article of 1977 which falsely claimed that the existence of a Neo-Nazi cell in north London was "phoney." Ironically, within a short space of time after that article's publication a fire-bombing campaign on north London synagogues was carried out by the very organisation claimed to be "phoney."
Sean Manchester has already made his own position quite clear. He has no interest in party politics and has at no time in his life been a member of any political party. False allegations to the effect that he has been a National Front member and canvassed for them stem exclusively from David Farrant; the same David Farrant who attempted to stand as a WWP candidate in the 1978 British General Election; the same David Farrant who recommended that any potential voters should switch to the NF when he stood down; the same David Farrant who has sought and received support from Nazi-minded individuals with far right associations to attack Sean Manchester.
In the 70s and 80s Sean Manchester was the North London Regional Co-ordinator for the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) and an active member of Pax Christi. His peace campaigning was supported by eminent figures such as Lord Fenner Brockway and often resulted in media coverage. When Sean Manchester led a "Fast for Peace" over Christmas and was joined by the elderly Lord Brockway and other peace campaigners, thugs, believed to be NF members, attacked those fasting. This was reported by local newspapers at the time.
John Pope, a Farrant collaborating associate since 1973, has a long history of Neo-Nazi involvement. He has even forwarded articles to the NF in relatively recent times, eg "Dr. John Pope De Locksley ... has produced three cyclostyled pieces on the Ripper, all seriously marred by habitual extreme inaccuracy and inconsistency, and atrocious spelling and grammar ... Under the pseudonym Dr. J. Macata he published a piece in the journal of the South-western branch of the National Front, arguing that [Michael] Ostrog was the Ripper". http://vampiresuk.mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/jakr2.htm
Frank Thorne's sensationalist piece (known as a "spoiler" in the business) in the Sunday People, 9 October 1977 was based exclusively on that newspaper reporter's collaboration with David Farrant who, of course, then as now is violently antipathetic toward Sean Manchester. He had not long been released from prison when his collusion with Thorne took place.
The Sunday People article came about when Sean Manchester refused to collude with Frank Thorne on an investigative piece he had begun to have published as a commission with the Times Group Newspapers who published the Borehamwood Post, Finchley Times and Hendon Times etc. This resulted in Thorne harassing Manchester's parents on the doorstep of their Islington home. The journalist was asked to desist on the grounds that Manchester's parents were not involved, nor responsible for any story Thorne might be looking to spoil, and that one of them, Manchester's father, was suffering with a heart condition. Thorne ignored such pleas and Manchester was obliged to meet the journalist, albeit briefly, at the offices of the Sunday People on 5 October 1977 in order to prevent any further harassment of his parents. This meeting confirmed Manchester's worst fears when it became apparent that Thorne, who suffered from a serious alcohol problem which eventually cost him his job, was consulting David Farrant who was willing to go along with anything the newspaper suggested in order to cause maximum damage.
Frank Thorne had decided the direction his piece on Sean Manchester's original work was heading after hearing from Farrant, and four days later published his "spoiler," as it is known in the print media, against the Times Group's exclusive series already in progress under Manchester's byline. In this "spoiler" - titled "We Unmask Phoney Nazis" - Thorne attributed quotes to three people. They all later denied making them and all issued complaints.
Complaints against Frank Thorne and the Sunday People were filed with Mirror Group Newspapers Ltd by Sean Manchester, Mike Clarke and John Russell Pope. A complaint was also lodged with the Press Council against Frank Thorne
and the Sunday People.
A statement was witnessed and signed by John Russell Pope in pursuit of his complaint against the Sunday People. A copy was also included among the documents lodged with the Press Council by Sean Manchester in his case against Thorne. Pope's testimony was added to illustrate that someone who was unsupportive of Sean Manchester would nonetheless not allow himself to be bullied by Thorne. It is understood that the following statement transcribed from his original taped recollection was made at the insistence of Pope's father, Fred Pope, who resented his son's treatment by the newspaper.
"On the evening of 6 October 1977, two men called at my home at [address deleted], Barnet, Hertfordshire, and without identifying themselves demanded to see me. My father thought they were police detectives by their manner. When invited to come inside, they refused and insisted that I accompany them to a nearby car. That is when they first revealed themselves to be working for the Sunday People. One, calling himself Frank Thorne, tried to make me say that a photograph of a man in a Nazi uniform was Seán Manchester. They showed me a copy of the Borehamwood Post and tried to make me say that the article called 'The New Nazis' was false. But they would not let me read any of the article and did not refer specifically to the 'League of Imperial Fascists.' They told me that I would be guaranteed future mention in their newspaper if I co-operated, but I was not prepared to let them use me in this way. The following evening I telephoned the Sunday People and asked to speak to the News Editor. I complained to him about his reporters' methods, especially Frank Thorne, and reminded him that I belonged to a survivalist group that had political connections, further about which I did not wish to elaborate. I did not seem to get any satisfactory replies, so I spoke to him again on the telephone on Saturday morning, 8 October 1977, by which time I had been told by Seán Manchester what Frank Thorne had alleged I said on Thursday evening, which I knew to be false. I did not identify any person in the photographs shown to me."
A statement (ref; CFW/SP/P6282/6/3/78) issued by Mike Clarke, editor of the Borehamwood Post, was noted by the Press Council. This greatly respected newspaper editor denied all the remarks attributed to him by Frank Thorne in the Sunday People article of 9 October 1977. He underlined the fact that he had most definitely not said the words, nor anything similar, to the effect of "I'm afraid I'm left with egg on my face. I shall be taking legal advice."
The complaint lodged by Sean Manchester with the Press Council was as follows:
"The Sunday People newspaper concocted an inaccurate article about me which they did not correct when presented with Mr John Pope's statement and other evidence which showed none of Frank Thorne's allegations against me to be true. Photographs belonging to me were used in an article without my permission. I was, however, promptly paid a sum of money for their use, which, unwisely, I accepted as compensation for what amounted to copyright theft. From the start I had made clear to Frank Thorne that I had no wish to 'collaborate' on the Nazi story as (a) it was my work, and (b) the Sunday People's 'treatment' of my work, as proposed by Frank Thorne to me, was one I found to be unacceptable. Frank Thorne then threatened to use my material with or without my permission. None of the quotes attributed to me are true. I did not state to Frank Thorne that the 'Nazi recruiting picture of John Pope' was 'faked.' I did identify the person in the picture [of the 'Commander']. This was ignored by Frank Thorne."
A compelling piece of evidence presented to the Press Council was Thorne's reliance on collusion with David Farrant.
Nobody else was willing to "identify" the Nazi Commander in the stolen photograph. For legal reasons Thorne fraudulently added Pope's name to the identification, but Pope absolutely denied making any such identification as his signed statement of 9 December 1977 attests. Furthermore, Pope, off the record, claimed that he had been "roughed up" by Thorne and the accompanying journalist when they took him away from his home for interrogation in their car.
Incredibly, Farrant, who is extremely antipathetic toward Manchester, agreed to make a statement (probably seeing its enormous publicity potential) which he duly signed on 2 January 1978. The statement was lodged with the Press Council by Sean Manchester. Farrant's statement follows:
"I received a 'phone call from Trevor Aspenal of the Sunday People who enquired about my relationship with Seán Manchester and the British Occult Society. I told him there was no change and that we were still strongly opposed to each other. I then spoke to Frank Thorne of the same newspaper who asked me if I could identify Seán Manchester in a picture. I told him that I would be able to. He then arranged for me to attend the Sunday People's offices where I was shown a photograph of someone in a Nazi uniform. He then showed me a number of other photographs of men and women in Nazi uniforms. I identified one of the men as John Pope. I agreed with Frank Thorne that the original picture shown to me could have been Seán Manchester."
The payment as compensation by the Sunday People to Sean Manchester for pictures infringed by them without his permission technically placed the complainant in a contractual relationship with the newspaper, thus contravening paragraph 4 of the Press Council's guidelines. The Press Council, therefore, were unable to process the complaint, but nonetheless acknowledged in writing that Sean Manchester, Mike Clarke and John Pope had disavowed the quotes attributed to them by Frank Thorne in the Sunday People article.
Six months after publication of the Frank Thorne's "spoiler" article in 1977, it was time for rewarding Farrant with some promised publicity. Frank Thorne accompanied David Farrant on a train journey to Grimsby where Farrant was photographed with "fiancée" Nancy O'Hoski outside a church for a half-page feature about their proposed wedding. Published in the Sunday People, 16 April 1978, Thorne's article opens with the following words:
"Self-styled witch king David Farrant - the man jailed for desecrating a tomb and threatening detectives with voodoo - has a new shock in store. What's more, Britain's best-known Prince of Darkness is dreaming of a traditional white wedding."
The article quoted Farrant as saying; "I want to put my ghoulish past behind me now. Either I give up witchcraft or Nancy."
Soon after the story was printed, Farrant gave up Nancy O'Hoski, a speech therapist (Farrant suffers from a nervous stammer). They did not get married. Then came a very curious turn of events. Farrant, within days of the publicity generated by his abandoned wedding plans in the Sunday People, prepared to stand as a candidate in the forthcoming British General Election. He 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, that thundered:
"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. Mr Farrant, who lives in Muswell Hill Road, is fighting under the slogan 'Wiccans Awake'."
David 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."
Nowadays Frank Thorne is unemployed and resides in Sydney, Australia, having lost his wife, family and job in the UK due to alcoholism.
Farrant's close associate since 1973 on whose behalf he threatened police witnesses, John Pope, continued with his Neo-Nazi connections, and more recently published a piece in the journal of the south-western branch of the National Front, an organisation with overtly Neo-Nazi views. He has belonged to survivalist groups and maintained contact with some of the most extreme movements to have existed on the far right.
David Farrant has a history of association with people with Neo-Nazi ideology. He connects, for example, to names such as Philippe Welte and Jean-Paul Bourre, two Frenchman who greatly admired Hitler at the time when Farrant was in collaboration with them during the 1980s. Farrant's slim self-published booklet "Beyond the Highgate Vampire" includes a photograph of Jean-Paul Bourre whom Farrant describes in the caption beneath as "a leading Satanist attempting to invoke the Devil." What Farrant fails to mention is his close friendship and collaboration over many years with Bourre. And there are others with whom Farrant has been associated who have NF connections. For example, the extremely violent Kenneth Frewen, a National Front supporter, acted as Farrant's "minder" during the 1970s and 1980s.
BAN THE BISHOP
Hitler is a complete pussycat compared to Manchester. Talk about Peace In Our Time and goodwill to all men. Isn't that what the Bible preaches, Mr. Manchester or do you not practice what you preach. If you are indeed a Christian then you should start looking more carefully at what Jesus preached.
Barbara has just said to me that she would rather be in a coal bunker with Hitler then be in one with Manchester. Manchester would be too fat to get in one anyway. Don't know why Manchester is preaching peace when all he does is cause trouble for everyone.
How many blogs has he got deleted and shut down. How many stolen copyrighted photographs has he nicked? How many peoples lives as he put in danger not least my own, David's and other innocent people.
He even put David's name on a Animal Rights board saying that he sacrificed cats, thereby literally putting David's life at risk. He even put all our details on a peadophile website etc. The list is endless. I've got three 40 page folders full of his nonsense not least other material which I've not had time to archive.
The Wicca Workers Party eventually went underground and today Farrant refuses to discuss it. In 1980, however, he teamed up with French Satanist Jean-Paul Bourre. He formed an association with another Frenchman, Philippe Welte, who contributed to Farrant’s newsletter. Both Jean-Paul Bourre and Philippe Welte at this time were ardent admirers of Adolf Hitler. Welte has always identified with the extreme Right. Farrant also allied himself with supporters of Class War, one of whose leaders was a prominent ex-National Front member. John Russell Pope, self-styled "master of the black arts," remains to this day an ardent Neo-Nazi. He has been a close associate of Farrant since September 1973. Farrant was sentenced to two years imprisonment for threatening witnesses in Pope's sexual assault case. Another two years sentence was earned for desecration and vandalism at Highgate Cemetery which Farrant says was "misunderstood."
Farrant and his associates still don't like to talk about the Wicca Workers Party. They nevertheless teamed up with the bigot Ian Keith Gomeche in 2004. At the time Gomeche was a moderator on the Nazi Combat 18 and Redwatch message boards where he posted stolen images of Sean Manchester, provided by Farrant and Fearnley, along a private address with incitements of hatred to try and put Manchester and his wife at risk.
It is amusing to see accusations of "Nazism" levelled by Farrant and his cronies against Sean Manchester.
Where is the evidence?
All we have is Farrant’s word and a thirty-year-old Sunday People article in which Farrant colluded with a journalist to besmirch a man he had been waging a vendetta against. This article, however, did not accuse Sean Manchester of being a Nazi. Quite the opposite, in fact, if it is read properly. Something Farrant never encourages people to do.
What Farrant had in common with the journalist responsible for the article is a penchant for alcohol. Indeed it was alcoholism which lost Thorne (the Sunday People reporter) his marriage and his job with Mirror Newspapers. He was obliged to go freelance thereafter and live abroad, mostly in unemployed capacity.
Journalist Peter Hounam wrote a front page story for the Hornsey Journal, 30 June 1978, that revealed Farrant's political aspirations:
“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. … Mr Farrant, who lives in Muswell Hill Road, is fighting under the slogan ‘Wiccans Awake’.”
That was only one of the slogans employed by Farrant. Another was The Future Can Be Yours If You Have The Guts To Fight For It! which just happened to be identical to a slogan used by the League of Imperial Fascists and also the National Socialist Workers Party (both shared the same correspondence contact address in Dublin, Ireland).
It was not Sean Manchester who threatened to stand as a WWP candidate at the 1978 General Election on a platform that might well have been that belonging to the National Socialist Party. It was Farrant.
It was not Sean Manchester who claimed in the press that he had amalgamated with other political parties, eg the National Front. It was Farrant.
It was not Sean Manchester who used Neo-Nazi runes as logos on his circulars. It was Farrant.
It was not Sean Manchester who cultivated Neo-Nazi acquaintances as friends and supporters. It was Farrant.
Sean Manchester, whilst Farrant was promoting the WWP, held membership in the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament for which he became North London Regional Co-ordinator under the then chairman Bruce Kent. He was also a member of Pax Christi.
Ironically, whilst North London Regional Co-ordinator for CND, Manchester and those assisting him at a CND backed "Christmas Fast for Peace" were physically attacked by members of the National Front. The fast itself, which was organised by Sean Manchester and lasted an entire week, was supported in person by Lord Fenner Brockway who admired Manchester and all he was doing for the peace movement.
Sean Manchester has appeared on television and radio programmes over the years to oppose the arms trade and war. He actively opposed the Vietnam War. He actively opposed the Falkland's War. He actively opposed both Gulf Wars. In fact, Sean Manchester opposes all war and has been an anti-war campaigner his entire life.
Having manufactured the false allegation that Seán Manchester canvassed for a political party when he absolutely did not, David Farrant is invited to answer the following:
a) What exactly is or was the "Wicca Workers Party"?
b) Which "political groups" did the "WWP" become "amalgamated" with in the 1970s?
c) Did or did he not, after he failed to stand as a WWP candidate (owing to his criminal record, according to him), ask his erstwhile supporters to transfer their vote to the National Front?
d) What was the significance of the symbol of a rune beneath an eagle on WWP posters circulated by him in the late 1970s? This same rune was being employed at the time by the extremist Column 88 group. There are slogans on the posters that bear an uncanny resemblance to Neo-Nazi slogans. Any comments?
e) What plans did he have for Christians after they had been outlawed, according to demands set out on his posters?
f) Why did his election posters call for a prohibition on Jewish ritual slaughter of livestock etc? Given Farrant's own alleged propensity for ritual sacrifice of animals* (whether he was genuine or merely claiming it for publicity) isn't such a platform hypocritical in the extreme?
* “I did not enjoy having to kill the cat, but for one particular partof the ritual it was necessary. The sacrifice of a creature represents the ultimate act in invoking a deity. If somebody crosses me or my friends I will use a curse. My curses have never failed. Others will tell you how I reduced one man to a mental breakdown and in the end he begged me to remove the curse.” ~ David Farrant (quoted in the News of the World, 23 September 1973)
I notice you have VERY quickly dropped the Clair and Nava issue in favour of 'cut and pasting' rubbish that you have copied here already.
WHY? Why is it that you reminded about something that is true (or asked about some issue that you know to be true, you quickly change the subject?
Could it be that answering some issues would incriminate you into admitting that you were just a proven liar?
You have lied about just everything here:
Your membership of the National Front
Your job as a milkman
Your job as an attendant at the Finchley Swimming Pool
Your divorce
Your wife Your two children
Myself
Your true involvement (or non-involvement) in the Highgate case
And much, much more.
And you purport to be a 'man of the cloth'!
Goodness knows how anybody could live admist so much tangled deceipt. Well, keep it up Sean. You are only really fooling yourself.
For now,
The No Longer Anonymous One
"Farrant and his associates still don't like to talk about the Wicca Workers Party. They nevertheless teamed up with the bigot Ian Keith Gomeche in 2004. At the time Gomeche was a moderator on the Nazi Combat 18 and Redwatch message boards where he posted stolen images of Sean Manchester, provided by Farrant and Fearnley, along a private address with incitements of hatred to try and put Manchester and his wife at risk."
We did not colaborate with anyone. It was Mr. Manchester himself who posted all our details there first, Gomeche telephoned myself that same day to ask if I was aware of the situation and explained how to remove our details which thankfully they did. And they also said that they would co-operate with the Police if we needed any evidence. Indeed the very material which Manchester put up originally is in the hands of our Solicitor and also I have a copy of these complete with Headers and Footers and Mr. Manchester's email address. Not only that but again they stole several copyrighted photographs wholesale from our MSN board and uploaded these onto the Combat 18 Site. Ian Gomeche did indeed ask us for information about Manchester that I'm not denying what he did with that information was entirely upto him and we had no say in the matter.
Those illegedly stolen images of Manchester were provided by Manchester himself on his silly MSN boards. If anyone has any dealings with MSN they will be aware that any tom, dick or harry can download these images and that you can't put a block on it either. So Manchester if you don't want anyone to download your photographs (which most of us don't anyway) then don't upload them onto MSN.
How about this for a laugh (you'll have to copy and paste the link as normal)
http://www.webministries.co.uk/sketches/tubbies.htm
How's about this then folks, here are the Chuckle Brothers in their brand new tour. And the subject fits the bill perfectly!!!!
Don’t miss the Chuckle Brothers in their brand new production of “Spooky Going’s On 2”
Well folks,
You'll be breathing a sigh of relief for the next few days (at least until Friday) as I have far more important things such as being prepared for Confirmation in June. Not to mention that it is Ash Wednesday and naturally Lent. So I'll be extremely busy with Church matters.
So as a leaving question for Mr. Manchester, what are you giving up for Lent???????
See you all on Friday folks.
Catherine
There was only ever one milkman in the Farrant story and his name was Tony.
There was something which I always found puzzling until recently. It must have occurred to others who have read the published material.
Why has Farrant spent more than half his life pursuing a vendetta, which consumes most of his time every day of the week, against a man whose beliefs he opposes and who publically rejected Farrant's fraudulent association with his investigation and his society? Yet Farrant has virtually ignored the man who in 1968 ran off with his wife, Mary, for six months? This man is surely a more obvious candidate for Farrant's venom, but he has been practically ignored. This I have always found puzzling. Until now.
This man who had run off with Farrant's wife also let Farrant occupy his coal cellar in September 1969 and for the next three months they conspired together to get a phoney story published in the local press which, in the event, was overshadowed by rumours of a vampire in the vicinity, rumours that had been circulating pubs in the area for some time, leaving Farrant attempting to bandwagoneer an already growing outside situation with his letter to the Hampstead & Highgate Express on 6 January 1970.
The same man, who Mary Farrant identified as "Tony" at Farrant's trial (as revealed in the Hampstead & Highgate Express, 21 June 1974), also took photographs of the would-be interloper in the catacombs and mausoleums of Highgate Cemetery. One of these show Farrant peering into a damaged coffin (an image used by the prosecution), Farrant emerging from various tombs and yet other pictures of him prowling with a wooden stake in one hand and a cross in the other in search of a vampire.
But Tony had been clever enough to secretly tape-record his conversations with Farrant in late 1969 and early 1970 in the flat above the coal cellar where he lived. These recordings leave no doubt that Farrant was conspiring to concoct a fake ghost story to con local newspapers. Their existence must have become known to Farrant and it explains why Tony, despite making a cuckold of Farrant, remained immune.
Tony must have realised that possession of these tapes ensured he had something on Farrant to keep him quiet about their collaboration and his involvement as the photographer given the pseudonym "Hutchinson" by Farrant who falslely claimed to the media could not be found.
For over three decades this situation remained unaltered. Then Tony left England to live abroad. Feeling nothing but contempt for Farrant and everything he had witnessed in the press and elsewhere, Tony gave the tapes (or copies of the tapes) to Sean Manchester as a parting gift. He no longer had anything to lose. His whereabouts will certainly never be known to Farrant and company.
There is just one problem now facing Farrant. Sean Manchester has the secretly recorded conversations from 1969/1970.
Time for another Chapter, Sean.
But first, just to set the record straight, I have absolutely no problem with any tapes - providing they're genuine. No have no genuine tape recordings of myself, Mr. Manchester. Only one permitted interview which you subsequently cut to pieces and 're-aranged' to suit your own sick agenda.
Regarding 'Tony'; it was YOU who was friendly with him Sean. When he moved to Highagte with his young wife and daughter in 1967, it was you (and your first wife, who moved into his old flat in Holloway. You worked in his photographic studio in 1968, then later followed in his footsteps as a milkman in 1970'71. The pair of you were virtually inseperable from the early days and always getting up to 'photographic publicity stunts'. On page 26 in my book "Beyond the Highgate Vampire" I have an excellant photograph of the pair of you together 'frollicking about' in the garden of your house in New Southgate in 1977. I also published another excellent one of Toni in the catecombes of Kensal Green cemetery beside a real skeleton (you were out of camera shot) which you gave me for publication in 1991.
Oh dear, Sean! You really are getting well out of your depth!
Anyway, after that short prefix, on with the chapter (from my book The Vampyre Syndrome, 2000) . . .
PART 6: 'WHEN THE BLIND LEAD THE BLIND'....
Most followers of the Highgate vampire case will be aware that there exists a serious discrepancy between 'facts' presented in Mr Manchester's various writings (in particular, 'The Cross and the Stake', the home-made newsletter of the 'Vampire Research Society' compiled by Mr Manchester himself) about events at Highgate Cemetery and the existence of a so-called 'vampire' there, and official reports about the existence of this phenomenon by the British Psychic and Occult Society that concluded alleged reports of a 'vampire', in fact, only remained embellishment on the part of certain parties who attempted to 'cash in' and attract publicity to this unexplained entity or 'ghost'.
The main 'utterances' given to the vampire theory, were forthcoming from one Patrick Sean Manchester, (as they still are today) who as well as referring to himself as an expert 'vampire hunter', also claimed other various titles in his quest to hunt down the 'Highgate Vampire.' These vary; from becoming a humble photographer in the late 1960's to later claims that he was a 'Lord' (a direct descendant of Lord Byron himself, in fact), a 'Doctor', a 'Legal Consultant' and eventually (to date) a fully-fledged 'Bishop'! Manchester's most noteworthy claims, however, are not those that attempt to portray an image of self-importance amongst his small audience of spasmodic readers, but a majority of other vindictive claims and self-motivated attacks that he has periodically made upon others. Most of these claims would appear to be solely motivated against myself. At least, one only has to read Manchester's superfluous scrawl that fills the pages of his 'Cross and the Stake' (or for that matter, the numerous other personal correspondence he has sent to others), before realising I have become an 'ultimate passion' that fulfils his life!
It might otherwise be a privileged honour to be held in such great esteem; but unfortunately, Manchester's criticisms of myself are not objective, but self-motivated.
One of the more preposterous claims, Manchester has frequently put forward to discredit my involvement in the original 'vampire hunting' case in the early 1970's, are his quotes from a later Trial when I appeared at the Old Bailey on charges relating to 'damage to graves'. He quotes - almost frequently - that 'Mary Farrant' said under Oath that ... 'It was for a laugh and a joke. We would wander around, frighten ourselves to death and come out again. But we never did any damage' ... It is true, that when Mary Farrant appeared at the Old Bailey in 1974 (in fact I subpoenaed her having not been in touch for some four years), she made the statement as reported above; but then, she had read press reports of the Highgate case beforehand, and seeing how the whole thing was being so obviously distorted with all the untrue allegations being made by the police regarding my alleged involvement in 'black magic', she attempted to 'help me' by playing events down. It was a kind gesture. She at least didn't capitalise upon her husband's serious involvement, unlike the demonised Manchester who was later to use press statements attributed to her solely to his own advantage.
Ironically, perhaps, Manchester's observations are limited solely to Press reports about Mary Farrant's statements in Court: but then Manchester has a habit of quoting newspaper reports that conveniently suit his propaganda; even if such reports have not not been reported in their entirety or have been misrepresented by what was actually stated in Court. For had he been present, he would have heard much more of what Mary stated under Oath; among other things, he would have heard her state, that Sean Manchester was a friend of the man 'Tony' who supplied me with an incriminating photograph that related to Highgate Cemetery. She also stated (under Oath) that she knew Sean Manchester, and that she knew him to be a friend of one Tony Hill. He had taken her to Manchester's Holloway Road flat on one occasion, and she knew Tony Hill regularly visited there ...
The casual reader is left to enquire as to just why Mary Farrant and Tony Hill visited Manchester's flat in the first place. For Manchester conveniently forgets to mention this episode when invoking 'past history', but his very exclusion of this incident - let aside his real involvement with events at the time - only serves to confirm that he (Manchester) is perhaps being less than economical with the truth regarding incidents that actually occurred. He is, after all, all to obliging to reiterate this incident in his pamphlet 'From Satan to Christ', but much less enthusiastic to recount his true relationship with the people concerned; and far more reluctant, it would appear, to recount what actually happened.
But this could really be seen to epitomise Manchester's life, and his career as a self-acclaimed writer. His motto seems to be, to record only facts that suit him. If some do not, he will either disguise them conveniently or more than often, ignore them completely. Such has been the 'web of deceit' that invariably accompanies Manchester's sordid writings ...
Over to you Sean . . .
The Now Hopelessly Way Beyond Being The Anonymous One!
For Everyone,
Lest it be said that the previously published extracts "AND THEY SERVED ME DINNER" and "WHEN THE BLIND LEAD THE BLIND" are not 'official', may I say that these are from my book "THE VAMPYRE SYNDROME" which is on public record and on sale from Amazon and most major bookshops. The ISBN is: 0 9517867 4 1 [published 2000].
Have to wait for 'Seanie' now, but might grace you with another chapter.
The No Longer Not So Anonymous One.
(This is getting a bit tedious to type. From now on, might as well just sign 'D'!)
"[Manchester] worked in his [Tony's] photographic studio in 1968, then later followed in his footsteps as a milkman in 1970'71. The pair of [them] were virtually inseperable from the early days and always getting up to 'photographic publicity stunts'. ... I also published another excellent one of Toni [Freudian slip?] in the catecombes of Kensal Green cemetery beside a real skeleton (you were out of camera shot) which [Manchester] gave me for publication in 1991" - David Farrant (February 21, 2007 12:48 PM)
Now for some facts.
Tony worked part-time only on certain afternoons at Sean Manchester's photographic studio. In the mornings Tony worked as a milkman during this entire period. When Manchester closed his studio after the lease ran out, Tony ceased work as a milkman to work as a newspaper vendor for a business given him by his wife's father. At no time did Tony work full-time at the studio and at such time he did work at the studio (three of four afternoons a week) it was for Sean Manchester who paid his wages.
The "photographic publicity stunts" is something more akin to Farrant's aspirations. Please note the total absence of any evidence. Farrant was not even on the scene at this time and only eventually knew Tony in 1968 exclusively in relation to the Highgate pub where Farrant's wife worked as a barmaid in the evenings while also working full-time in the small shop which takings Farrant lived off until they were declared bankrupt.
How did Sean Manchester give Farrant a picture "for publication in 1991" when the last time they met was five years earlier (and the time before that another five years earlier still)? Anyone who has read about that last meeting in the 1980s (in From Satan To Christ) would also know that it came about due to a written threat posted to Manchester by Farrant. The meeting in Highgate Wood was brief and not especially good humoured. Hardly a venue for supplying pictures of someone Farrant claims was associated with Manchester!
As if Farrant would be given anything by Manchester!!!
The photograph of Tony in Farrant's pamphlet "Beyond the Highgate Vampire" was stolen by Farrant. Tony claims it was from his parked car, but who knows? It was definitely not given to Farrant, that's for sure, and the legal copyright holder is Sean Manchester whose camera was used to take the picture (long before 1977).
"She also stated (under Oath) that she knew Sean Manchester, and that she knew him to be a friend of one Tony Hill. He had taken her to Manchester's Holloway Road flat on one occasion, and she knew Tony Hill regularly visited there ..." - David Farrant (February 21, 2007 12:48 PM)
And (not told by Farrant) when the couple knocked at Manchester's door neither Tony nor Mary gained entry.
If Tony was such a "regular visitor" and such a "friend" surely he would have been welcomed with open arms? Or perhaps not?
They sought refuge at the commencement of their elopement and Sean Manchester was not prepared to be involved in this.
Farrant was someone he didn't know anything about. Mary was someone he had vaguely seen working as a barmaid, but that is all.
Tony worked for him part-time, but Tony's affair with a married woman was not something Manchester wanted to assist as he knew Tony's wife and felt his friendship, such as it was with them both, was being compromised by bringing it to his doorstep.
According to Sean Manchester's memoir, this soured things between Tony and him for quite a while.
It is hard to believe that all this minutia from circa forty years ago still obsesses Farrant. Why does he bother to whitewash the past and revise things that nobody else could give a flying fig about?
Mary is almost definitely the least bit interested, even if she could remember that far back.
Tony is certainly bored rigid at just the mention of Farrant whom he used to find a figure of fun, but now just wants to forget.
Sean Manchester advises everyone to just ignore all this nonsense and get on with their lives. The last time he bothered to set the record straight was ten years ago. Enough is enough seems to be his take on it.
So what is it that makes Farrant persist, posting (usually in copy and pasted form) the most tedious rubbish imaginable every day of his life? Even spending what little money he has on having it printed in stapled pamphlet form and sending it to people who didn't want to receive it in the first place!
Is this really all he has to fill his days and nights?
Surely nobody other than those who have an interest in psychology would ever bother to read blogs like this? I find it a struggle myself and see no point in continuing to stimulate what in effect is a sick and sad individual.
What does Farrant expect out of any of this?
It's hardly won him any brownie points so far. What is he looking to achieve?
Is this really how he wants to live out the last few years of his life?
On the contrary, Mr. Manchester, I have found peoples' reaction to all this has been one of great interest to seeing all your habitual lies exposed.
Now, you are absolutely right, Mr. Manchester. You did not give me any photographs in 1991 it was in 1981. As usual you are playing on trivialities – in this case a simple typing error.
You gave me the pictures of Toni in 1981 to send to a French magazine for publication. The journalist who worked on the magazine (Le Autre Monde) called Jean-Paul Bourre.
When you came to my flat, you bought a wad of ‘black magic’ photographs with you. I selected 5 for potential publication.
Your conversation was recorded and later published in “The Seangate Tapes”. Would you like to ‘listen’ to yourself during some of the best parts of this conversation? I appreciate that old age might have impaired your memory, but perhaps ‘listening’ to yourself again might help to ‘jog’ your memory . . .
Are you sitting comfortably?!? Good. Here goes . . .
THE BOURRE WAR . . . ON TAPE!
Anyone who has read Sean Manchester's sordid exposé of Devil-worship, From Satan to Christ, will be aware that he claims that, as a Christian, for twenty years he worked undercover in the world of occultism to help the 'lost sheep' to 'find the Light'. Some of his private conversations, however, give a quite different picture: they shed an interesting light on the future 'bishop's' holy work.
SEAN MANCHESTER: I had these made, you see, these are invocations, proper invocations … I do exorcisms, invocations and everything … it's on animal skin, and I'm going to have one made, like this, which will be in the form of a curse, it won't say 'curse', it will be like this, an invocation, it's going to have all Latin like this, I'm going to have Bourre snuffed out, and I'm going to have it done on parchment, this is on skin. I'm going to have it done on stretched parchment, I'm going to have it done like this, in this style, I'm going to have it sealed, and I'm going to send it to all the High Priests, Priestesses, Heads, Grandmasters, Wizards, in England, Germany, France, America, the world. At a precise moment, to be decided upon, we are all going to, at the exact same moment, to do a worldwide ritual to snuff Bourre out. But not before telling him first!
Comment: The intended victim was jean-Paul Bourre, whose girlfriend, the journalist Natalie Sarazin, had previously been sent a parchment by Manchester containing an (unsuccessful) curse. Bourre reproduced this in his book Messes Rouges et Romantisme Noir, 1980. This and another of his pictures were in turn copied (without permission, of course!) in From Satan to Christ, together with an anguished howl that the curse was really the work of one of his enemies attempting to discredit him - as if there was any need to do so! Incidentally, Manchester's attempt to kill Bourre by black magic also failed.
SM: I've had a very difficult time deciding on the pictures because the actual close-ups are too … they're too jocular, and they're obviously not serious … although the setting might be, the expressions aren't intent, and also, they're obviously too posed, and the expressions are ones of obvious frivolity, whereas I had to pick those where the expressions were, something was going on, something was about to happen or had just happened, and there was a look of intent on the faces … That is one which looks like something's going on, he looks a little bit astonished … That's just to actually incriminate him, because it looks like something's going on … It doesn't look as if he's messing around, it looks as if he's going to do something, he's obviously up to no good. Obviously we don't want to do him any favours, make him some sort of anti-hero, a Black Magician; I mean there's a lot of people who are looking for Black Magicians, and would see him as a sort of teacher . . . [laughs hysterically] It can be said that he's just preparing for a naked Black Witchcraft ritual . . .
Comment: As if to prove the allegations made in From Satan to Christ Manchester illustrated the booklet with photographs of named individuals apparently engaging in Black Magic rites. From his above remarks, it is evident that in fact he had persuaded the subjects to pose for these pictures by giving them the impression that he was snapping them for fun. They had no idea that his ultimate intention was to libel them.
SM: But you know, you're biggest mistake, I think anyway, and I might as well tell you as there's nothing now you can do about it - you've gone too far down the road - the biggest mistake you made, especially with France (and you made it here as far as I', concerned); and I mean you made it here and I mean I kind of backfired on you . . . you've always claimed to be ... I mean when it gets down to the interview, to the actual Farrant speaks - you know, now you know what he's got to say - you always claim to be white, you always claim to be against the black magicians and against the Satanists, and all this sort of business, and believe you me that goes so much against you. If your interest is in the media coverage, if your interest is in the public attention, then that is not the way to do it. Put yourself, for one minute, just in the position of an ordinary member of the public, or even an editor, or anyone, who wants to pick up a magazine, especially a sensational one, and read something ... what would you rather read about, would you rather read about? Would you rather read about somebody going on about well, of course we're really white, we do good and we're against evil; or would you rather read about the evil one's that you're talking about?
DAVID FARRANT: Yeah. I know what you mean ...
SM: And it's a really bad mistake. Now I didn't ask to be blackened in France, but between you and Bourre, you've really blackened ... I mean, you've really made me to be the arch-Satanist of England.
DF: Well I haven't..
SM: No. No. ...
DF: I've never said anything ...
SM: Well actually you have because, because Bourre claims to me, that he got most of it from you. Bourre claimed that when he first of all came over here with Nathalie, he claimed that he was trying to get to the bottom of the Highgate business, the vampire and all that, and your going to jail and all this business ... and he claims that you said that there was real black magicians in Highgate, and he said but yes, can you name any of them?
DF: (Interjecting) Yes. But I never said it was you I swear to you ...
SM: Well he reckons you did ...
DF: Well I didn't and he's definitely not telling the truth if he says that I did.
SM: Well, one way or the other it's come out that way in France, and it's generally accepted that I am the evil one; you know, I'm sinister. And my protestations to the contrary haven't been that strong ... I've simply only insisted on being president of the occult society ... I not said, oh look, I'm the good one and he's the bad one. I've simply said oh look, I am the president of the occult society. Whereas you've come over and said, oh yeah, but we do white magic we don't do all this Satanism, we're against all that, and you see you've protested so much that way so that means that automatically the other bloke must be the other way inclined. And of course, that has got me a far greater Cult following than had I been the White Knight on a charger.
DF: Yes. Well look. What are these five things you said that you're coming on to in a minute?
SM: Well look. Once I have deliberated those, they are final. You know that. They are quite final ... But just to get rid of Bourre once and for all. He didn't mention the forthcoming stuff with Sylvaine and myself?
DF: No. He did not.
To be continued . . .
(But not now!)
The Less Than Anonymous One!
Is this really how he [David] wants to live out the last few years of his life?
If anybody's going to die in the next few years it will be you Mr. Manchester. That isn't a threat, just an observation based on your spiralling weight problem.
Instead of typing your fingers to the bone trying to have the last word like a petulant playground bully why don't you get off your fat arse and get some exercise. To think that you were once so dashing in your obscenely tight jodhpurs too!
Alex.
'Ow many today then, missus?
Well, he has had the last word now, Alex!
Maybe now he'll go away and leave everybody in peace - and take all his lies with him.
Just for the record, in case I forget, Mr. Manchester did take up employment as a milkman in the very early 1970's. (I have the documentation to prove it). And what's wrong with that? I can hear people ask.
Absolutely nothing, but its a far cry from the 'Lord' Mr. Manchester was then pretending to be!
The Less Than Anonymous One
The other person portrayed in the photographs Manchester submitted, was a young blonde girl also similarly decked-out in Nazi Uniform and described as a dedicated follower of this sinister Organisation. She however, quickly ‘went to ground’ when she learned that the Sunday People were on her tail… which was maybe just as well, considering she was a young girlfriend of Manchester’s called Katrina whom he used to escort regularly to a local Highgate pub!
Hi David,
Is this the same "Katrina" that moderates the Cross and Stake boards for Manchester today?
Cheers,
Alex.
Okay. If Farrant wants to spend the rest of his life posting lies and deceits which only feeble-minded dupes such as Alex Berger bother to absorb, so be it ...
"The intended victim was jean-Paul Bourre, whose girlfriend, the journalist Natalie Sarazin, had previously been sent a parchment by Manchester containing an (unsuccessful) curse. Bourre reproduced this in his book Messes Rouges et Romantisme Noir, 1980. This and another of his pictures were in turn copied (without permission, of course!) in From Satan to Christ, together with an anguished howl that the curse was really the work of one of his enemies attempting to discredit him." - David Farrant (February 21, 2007 6:40 PM)
Anyone who views the "curse" for themselves will immediately recognise Farrant's handwriting and his poor ability to draw anything. You don't need to be a graphologist (though they are certainly invited to examine the evidence) to know that Farrant sent this "curse," and nobody else was involved but him.
Even Jean-Paul Bourre knew that Farrant was the sender.
Late in the 1980s, Sean Manchester spoke in person to Nathalie Sarazin and she agreed totally with him that Farrant was the author of the curse sent to her.
Bourre is not an easy character to track down, but anyone sufficiently interested should do two things: look at the "curse" and then look at anything written or drawn by Farrant. Next, try and contact Nathalie Sarazin and see what she thinks. She is an intelligent woman, not easily fooled, and is probably still a working journalist, so it can't be too difficult to find her and ask her.
The so-called "tapes" are heavily doctored, edited and wrongly attributed (time frame etc) by Farrant and they predominantly do not contain anything that Farrant is alleging.
Sean Manchester explained the situation long ago. For example, page 49 of The Vampire Hunter's Handbook (1997):
“Notwithstanding my firmly established Christian credentials, it is a matter of public record that I have worked undercover during certain periods of my life.”
And in his memoir Stray Ghosts (2003):
“By the mid-1980s, covert operations in the occult underworld that took me to the dark corners of human existence were necessarily abandoned. Within three years, the wolf’s clothing required for that task was finally discarded when From Satan To Christ was published. It was an immense relief to no longer work undercover in the occult hemisphere; dealing with so much deceit and chicanery; having to say things to draw out intelligence to uncover facts. It was like awakening from a nightmare of a colourless void into a beautiful landscape of rainbows. I sensed almost being reborn again. Two brief meetings with David F—— occurred during the last years of my working covertly. The final one in Highgate Wood, recounted in From Satan To Christ, witnessed him, almost without substance, wafting betwixt trees in the night aimlessly. The penultimate meeting on 11 May 1982 found me confronting him with incontrovertible evidence of his deception and press collusion. Taped conversations with a London firm of solicitors identifying his shenanigans now existed.
“Confronting him at this late stage exposed the fact that I had been gathering evidence against him, and that I was not the “wolf” I had appeared to be throughout our conversations during much of the preceding period. A previous confrontation, ten years earlier, had simply been a challenge for him to be put to the test over his “witchcraft powers.” In the interim, I thought I had managed to gain his confidence by adopting a neutral and pliant stance toward his games. Playing on his ego, telling him what I felt he wanted to hear, I believed I was able to draw him out. I would raise certain topics purposely to see if he would take the bait. However, new evidence revealed that, despite these attempts to win his trust, I remained high on his list of intended targets.
“F—— was one person whom nobody could surpass in the art of deception. However, the assistance of the News of the World, especially their legal manager, Henry R Douglas, and solicitor John E Payne of Oswald Hickson, Collier & Co, put paid to F——’s devious plan to again attempt to frame innocent people. He had already secretly colluded with a journalist in 1977 to try and harm my reputation, but on this occasion F—— had come unstuck. The newspaper was having none of it. The scheme involved framing Anthony Hill with a counterfeit article forged by F——’s second wife (with whom he was still in touch, although they were no longer living together) in what ostensibly appeared to be Hill’s handwriting. Ultimately the intended target, of course, was me. I was named throughout the fraudulent article. I played F—— the taped evidence, told him what I knew, and asked him to explain himself. He stood in stony silence. Eventually, despite being confronted with this cast iron evidence, he rather pathetically attempted to deny everything. His pale eyes became downcast. He was visibly shaken. In that moment I recognised his emptiness and his weakness, which no amount of pity could rectify. I told him to his face that he was an interloping charlatan who had brought grief to all sorts of people with his sick pranks, and that he had yet again been found out. Moreover, our infrequent meetings were now almost at an end.
“We did meet briefly one last time five years later, but this was related solely to him sending a “challenge to a duel” on 21 December 1986. [A facsimile of F——’s “challenge” is reproduced in From Satan To Christ, Holy Grail, 1988, page 51.]
“Following that final meeting, I would write: “The sombre figure of David F[——] can still be seen shuffling through London’s Muswell Hill as the Eighties draw to a close. He occupies a bed-sitting room opposite Highgate Wood where he once shamelessly flaunted his witchcraft. Now stooped and haggard-looking, he dwindles in his own peculiar oblivion.” [From Satan To Christ, Holy Grail, 1988, page 24.] Sadly, in the new century, he has advanced no further than where he was three and a half decades ago. He still haunts the same old pubs where he smokes his cigarettes and plans his pranks on unfortunate victims. But if his pathetic story provides a warning to others who foolishly dabble in the occult, pretend to be something they are not, and seek publicity for no good reason ― his existence will, perhaps, have served some useful purpose. Yet his life has so obviously been a tragic waste.”
"... just to set the record straight, I have absolutely no problem with any tapes - providing they're genuine." - David Farrant (February 21, 2007 12:48 PM)
They're genuine all right! And they expose Farrant for the fraud he was back then and still is now. He can be heard concocting a fake "ghost story" for his local newspaper and, on another tape, conspiring to use people's names and addresses (including Nava Grunberg, though he changed her name, and Kenny Frewen whose name he didn't change) to send fraudulent letters to the same newspaper. It was a big mistake to use real names and real addresses. The tape confirms that Farrant was behind this. The tapes also reveal that he also had a plan to expose his own "ghost story" as a hoax to the national newspapers when he had successfully duped the local press. This didn't happen as events overtook Farrant's miserable little ploy.
How many times has everyone heard Farrant say "go ahead and publish"? He said this some years back about his prison correspondence to Sean Manchester, but when a forum run by the VRS uploaded this correspondence he had Fearnley make complaints on his behalf until it was removed. I wonder why? The prison correspondence exposes what Farrant is now claiming about events in 1970 to be a total deceit.
Farrant knows that to secretly record someone and publish that recording to their detriment, doctored or not, is illegal in the UK. To legally publish the 1969/70 tapes of him and Tony in conversation would require a signed and witnessed release from him.
Somehow I don't think that will be forthcoming.
Post a Comment