It's nice when I get comments on my blog.
Unfortunately, they've tended to be by the fly-by-nighter, Gothic. Every time I check the link to his profile, it leads me to a dead end. Should this happen again, his comments will be rejected for publication.
Anyhoo, his most recent contributions (perhaps appropriately) have been to "Impostor Strikes Again!".
Let's take a look at what he had to say on October 1, 2008 6:30 PM. I'll add comments of my own:
As they "perceive his interest to be", eh? So, in other words, they "represent" him...but without authorisation to do so. Within that context, pretty much anything goes, including stalking, harassment, etc. After all, defense, in this case, is in the "eye of the beholder".
Your use of "we" indicates that you're a member of the FoBSM. How unfortunate. Although, not surprising.
Anyhoo, regarding the case, you're essentially saying that it's your prerogative to a) request personal information of someone, via online means b) without authorisation of either the law or the person (Manchester) you represent. In other words, the "vigilante" tag I gave your clandestine group, is rather apt.
Then you'll also remember that Peroxide, the author of the blog, claimed to have had Craig's IP address. She/he also admitted to stalking them via Facebook and Bebo and had no problem in publicly publishing personal details about him (at least, she/he thought it was him) via their own blog.
The FoBSM isn't above such shady tactics themselves, which include forwarding along personal details included in an e-mail, to an "independent" (but obviously not so) source.
So, forgive me if I have little sympathy for their "plight".
From my recollection, the picture in question actually had a sign in the window, with a "Holy Grail Church" label on it. That'd be an unusual thing to put on a private retreat.
Question: how are you privy to such information? How do you know if it's his retreat or not? The item I referred to was a photograph. Do you have an acquaintance with him? Are you writing in as his representative?
Also, would you mind revealing where in Glastonbury his church is meant to be?
And now, we move onto Gothic's October 1, 2008 10:46 PM comments:
Admittedly, this is true.
Craig only claimed that the usernames came from the same IP as the Bishop's. Would you like me to get him to publicly publish the IPs, so he can prove his case?
What's your source for this bit of information? Can you reproduce it?
Can you cite an article(s) where this occurred?
What were the "altered circumstances"?
Which begs the question: why would a man so concerned about his private identity, willingly allow his picture to be published in a book associated with the case? People aren't just identifiable by name, you know.
Also, just how had he become a familiar figure "in his own right"? I've seen no mention of him, apart from being association with the Vampire Research Society. And considering that he claims an involvement with the Highgate Vampire Case since its inception, he was hardly earning this fame on his own, independent level.
However, if he was, I invite you to prove it.
Unfortunately, they've tended to be by the fly-by-nighter, Gothic. Every time I check the link to his profile, it leads me to a dead end. Should this happen again, his comments will be rejected for publication.
Anyhoo, his most recent contributions (perhaps appropriately) have been to "Impostor Strikes Again!".
Let's take a look at what he had to say on October 1, 2008 6:30 PM. I'll add comments of my own:
The FoBSM, as understood by most, is an informal support group who act in the bishop's interest as they perceive that interest to be.
As they "perceive his interest to be", eh? So, in other words, they "represent" him...but without authorisation to do so. Within that context, pretty much anything goes, including stalking, harassment, etc. After all, defense, in this case, is in the "eye of the beholder".
We are given to understand that the police have encountered a problem tracking down the Craig Adams who posted illegally under the nom de plume "Hulk Hogan." They will not interview the wrong person and the crime is not serious enough to warrant them to be spending endless hours on a wild goose chase sifting through everyone bearing the name "Craig Adams."
Your use of "we" indicates that you're a member of the FoBSM. How unfortunate. Although, not surprising.
Anyhoo, regarding the case, you're essentially saying that it's your prerogative to a) request personal information of someone, via online means b) without authorisation of either the law or the person (Manchester) you represent. In other words, the "vigilante" tag I gave your clandestine group, is rather apt.
There still remains a crime to be answered and the police have apparently told the complainant that if an address is confirmed for the offender they will certainly be interviewing him. Craig Adams might not even be the offender's real name, as the police also pointed out. In the United Kingdom the public are asked to assist the police who are overworked and over-stretched. The request made by FoBSM was in that spirit.
Then you'll also remember that Peroxide, the author of the blog, claimed to have had Craig's IP address. She/he also admitted to stalking them via Facebook and Bebo and had no problem in publicly publishing personal details about him (at least, she/he thought it was him) via their own blog.
The FoBSM isn't above such shady tactics themselves, which include forwarding along personal details included in an e-mail, to an "independent" (but obviously not so) source.
So, forgive me if I have little sympathy for their "plight".
You are falling into the trap of employing false and misleading allegations made by those with an axe to grind. This time the piece of misinformation you have used originates with Barbara Green who has repeatedly stated that a property on the south coast of England sometimes occupied by Bishop Manchester and his wife is a church. It is nothing of the sort and has never been described as a church by anyone except Barbara Green.
From my recollection, the picture in question actually had a sign in the window, with a "Holy Grail Church" label on it. That'd be an unusual thing to put on a private retreat.
It has always been described by Bishop Manchester as his private retreat. It does contain a private chapel, but it is not a church and never has been. Repeating Barbara Green's malicious allegations is an indication of partiality - something you try to deny. She knows the property is not a church. Bishop Manchester's principal church is in Glastonbury.
Question: how are you privy to such information? How do you know if it's his retreat or not? The item I referred to was a photograph. Do you have an acquaintance with him? Are you writing in as his representative?
Also, would you mind revealing where in Glastonbury his church is meant to be?
And now, we move onto Gothic's October 1, 2008 10:46 PM comments:
You use the word "revealing" when all Craig Adams posted (copying Farrant's style) is a number of unsubstantiated claims. Adams offered no evidence to suggest that any IPs were the same as Bishop Manchester's IP. He made a false allegation. That is all. A false allegation which you have reproduced as fact, just as Adams reproduces Farrant's false allegations as fact. Where is the evidence?
Admittedly, this is true.
Craig only claimed that the usernames came from the same IP as the Bishop's. Would you like me to get him to publicly publish the IPs, so he can prove his case?
Dennis Crawford requested not to be identified by name or as being part of the investigating team at the time the first edition of The Highgate Vampire was being prepared. This was his condition for including his picture which also includes another member of the team.
What's your source for this bit of information? Can you reproduce it?
The media interviewed him during the case and he did use his first name, but not his surname.
Can you cite an article(s) where this occurred?
That was changed. With the passing of years and altered circumstances he eventually published his full name on the internet and allowed its appearance in The Vampire Hunter's Handbook.
What were the "altered circumstances"?
It was Dennis Crawford's own suggestion to be captioned as an anonymous freelance vampire hunter soon after the case was closed when the first edition was in preparation. He was probably concerned about possible repercussions so soon after the case had been brought to a close. His image was not used in the second edition to avoid any confusion as he had by the Nineties become a familiar figure in his own right and would have been recognised instantly by those in certain circles.
Which begs the question: why would a man so concerned about his private identity, willingly allow his picture to be published in a book associated with the case? People aren't just identifiable by name, you know.
Also, just how had he become a familiar figure "in his own right"? I've seen no mention of him, apart from being association with the Vampire Research Society. And considering that he claims an involvement with the Highgate Vampire Case since its inception, he was hardly earning this fame on his own, independent level.
However, if he was, I invite you to prove it.
