Friday, July 10, 2009

Manchester and the Law

During his usual game of dodging my questions, David decided to provide some interesting info on Sean Manchester over at Net Curtains Lurkers:
But also remember, such proof also came from the hi-tec department of the police. Two complaints were made to the police in 2004 and 2006 respectively: one on behalf of from Catherine, Kev and Chrissie Demant, Gareth J. Medway and myself for harassment by posting malicious material about other innocent people on the Internet: the other from Patsy for Bonky [David's nickname for Sean Manchester - ed.] sending her malicious emails to her place of work (before he discovered her address). Police thoroughly investigated both these complaints and Bonky (on threat of arrest) was made to sign two Police restraining Orders. He signed both these Orders after the Bournemouth police had visited him at his home in Bournemouth.
David subsequently offered me Sean Manchester's home address to verify this information with "the Yorkshire Police (Dewsbury) and the Feltham Police (Feltham Police in London)".

Could this be proof that the good Bishop has been engaging in acts of harassment?

We shall have to wait and see.

If it does prove to be true, I guess they'll have something else in common: run-ins with the law and the use of aliases to cover their tracks.

10 comments:

Demonologist said...

"Police thoroughly investigated both these complaints and Bonky (on threat of arrest) was made to sign two Police restraining Orders. He signed both these Orders." - David Farrant

You are publishing unsubstantiated allegations which violate the rights of Seán Manchester who at no time has received, much less has he signed, "two police restraining orders."

This is yet another excuse for Farrant to disseminate a private address to whomever wants it. Farrant's malicious allegations have evolved over the years from "warnings" to "cautions" to "restraining orders." None of which have been served on Seán Manchester. The British police will confirm that no orders (or anything else) have been served on or signed by Seán Manchester. Farrant is banking on you not making telephone calls to police stations in England from Australia.

Having published Farrant's defamation, I would now urge you to try and contact the police forces he has identified. Should you be successful in that endeavour, the British police will absolutely confirm that no such order were ever served on Seán Manchester who has no record whatsoever in the UK or anywhere else. The same cannot be said about Farrant whose criminal record is considerable.

The Overseer said...

Ah, Demonologist.

Slipped on your previous username, I see.

What I published is on public record. The source is a posting David made over at Net Curtains Lurkers.

I'm not saying it's true. I'm merely quoting something he said as a potential lead to follow.

Something, incidentally, you've challenged me to follow-up: "Having published Farrant's defamation, I would now urge you to try and contact the police forces he has identified."

Now, considering that you don't speak with the Bishop's authority, your word is just as valid as his is at the moment. That is, it's not. Without further proof.

Demonologist said...

There is a fundamental principle that seems to constantly escape your attention, which is to repeat defamation from elsewhere, even though you are not the primary source, renders you equally liable in law should damages be sought and action taken against those publishing such defamation. It is the publishers, all of them, you included, who have the burden of proving what they are alleging or insinuating in a court of law.

All I have done, as you have taken it upon yourself to proliferate Farrant's malicious falsehood, is encourage you to now call his bluff. If you don't like hearing it from me, then contact Seán Manchester yourself. Do you imagine he will tell you something different?

It's really lame to say that I "don't speak with the Bishop's authority." As a friend, I don't need his authority to state what I know to be absolutely true. Do you speak with Farrant's authority? Do you speak with the creator of the hate blog's authority when you repeat his libel on your blog?

The fact that you award yourself points because a tiny clique who despise Seán Manchester claim you have won the argument against me is surely scraping the barrel for approval. Who would want to announce something like that? It's surely an embarrassment to have them offer any kind of accolade? And who in their right mind would want to accept it?

The Overseer said...

Here's the problem Deme: how can you jump the gun and call it defamation, if you're also encouraging me to test the claim out myself?

It's not "lame" to say you don't speak with the Bishop's authority. It's simply true.

As you've said elsewhere, the Bishop prefers not to let himself get involved with matters concerning Farrant. So, you wading into this thing and speaking on his behalf, has about as much authority as hot air.

I don't care if you're his friend, his wife or his manservant. The claim isn't about you, it's about him.

Thus, you can't know it "absolutely". I mean, were you there? It's bad enough that you can't even saw what involvement you've had with the VRS is (apart from being their human photocopier), that you feel like you have to speak on every single minutiae that concerns someone on whose word you merely rely on.

Thinking I'm after approval is something both you and the Farrant bunch have in common. I'm not after approval from anyone. Like I said, my stance on this thing is neutral, thus, both sides of the "Feud" are open to criticism and query.

I know both sides of the affair have great difficulty grasping the concept of "neutrality", that is, if you criticise one side, you must be in league with the other side.

You both need to stop being so narrow-minded.

George W. Bush perfectly exemplified this level of thinking when he said: "Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists."

No room for a middle way.

The reality is, this approach only serves to condemn you both.

Demonologist said...

Urging you to test a claim to prove its falsity has nothing to do with the publication of libel or violation of someone's rights. You can test a claim without repeating it to satisfy yourself that the allegations found elsewhere are false. Where you slip up is repeating the allegations as though they might be true and leaving it for the public to decide. If those allegations of themselves are libellous you are in breach of defamation laws such as exist in Australia and the United Kingdom.

Seán Manchester understandably wants to deny Farrant the oxygen of publicity and knows that anything he might say will only add fuel to the fire. He feels the argument against Farrant was won decades ago and only the publicity-seeking charlatan will stand to benefit from its continuance. That does not prevent you contacting Seán Manchester privately to iron out anything which is troubling you.

The bottom line is that you want to become part of a publicity machine which advantages those who enjoy publicity but not those who don't. How much of Seán Manchester's life do you want him to devote to publishing refutations and rebuttals? He has already spent half of it setting the record straight on matters which fascinate you and many others. His family, friends, colleagues and acquaintances have suffered threats and libellous allegations due to the stoking of Farrant's hate campaign.

I am not saying you represent either side of the fence right now, but those who sit on the fence always run the risk of toppling over one side or the other. Ultimately there is no "neutrality" in truth, only those who claim it in the hope of avoiding injury. The middle of the road is a dangerous place to occupy where two lane traffic is speeding in opposite directions.

The Overseer said...

"Seán Manchester understandably wants to deny Farrant the oxygen of publicity and knows that anything he might say will only add fuel to the fire."

Which is funny, considering that he saw fit to respond to a Fortean Times review of David's latest autobiography.

I guess it's up to nom-de-plums like yourself to be more explicit in giving David further publicity by pretending to speak on the Bishop's behalf.

"The bottom line is that you want to become part of a publicity machine which advantages those who enjoy publicity but not those who don't."

If I wanted publicity, why do I write under a pseudonmyn? Remember, you're the one who publicly revealed my name.

Now, since you accuse me of a crime, the onus is on you to prove it. Go on.

Demonologist said...

If you had read the review of Farrant's "autobiography" you would know that, like the "autobiography" itself, it concentrates on libelling Seán Manchester and misrepresenting the British Occult Society.

Seán Manchester had little choice but to engage lawyers. Fortean Times backed down, as will be discovered by its readers later this month. That does not alter the fact that those who saw the "offending review" (the magazine editor's own words - he was apparently on holdiday when it was submitted) will have been seriously misled over the nonsense from Farrant regurgitated by reviewer David V Barrett at Seán Manchester's expense.

Seán Manchester was advised to put out a statement refuting the defamatory and misleading allegations for the benefit of those who had read them in the Fortean Times' review. This he did. Had he not done so, many would be left not knowing what to think. Fortean Times magazine is not the same as someone like David Farrant or Barbara Green disseminating misrepresentation. Nobody in their right mind would believe anything Farrant and company claims, but a glossy magazine devoted to Fortean topics and the paranormal obviously carries more weight, especially as it was not clear that Barrett was merely repeating what Farrant alleged about Seán Manchester and the British Occult Society in his self-published "autobiography."

The Overseer said...

I don't think there's any problem with the Bishop having a rebuttal, but to try to wash the VRS's hands of giving Farrant further publicity is a laugh.

A sizable amount of their output - and yours - is dedicated to rebutting Farrant, as well as undermining his character.

The need to constantly regurgitate and plagiarise this material under various guises - be in multiple blogs, forums and hidden pages in the VRS website illustrate this.

I, myself, found out about one of Farrant's boards thanks to members of the VRS quoting from it on the C&S. After I was censored on the matter through a decidedly suspect "vote", I founded my own forum in which I invited both sides to participate and for this act, was unceremoniously booted off the VRS forums.

Manchester also recently published Aftermath of the Highgate Vampire (2007) online, which was also largely focused on Farrant, as well.

Face it: both sides feed off the feud.

The shady tactics you both resort to, do you no favours.

If you want to read more to prove this, then click here.

Demonologist said...

I haven't tried to "wash the VRS's hands." It is inevitable that any setting of the record straight will bring Farrant some publicity and for him the only bad publicity is no publicity. It is a question of balance and doing what is considered necessary at the time.

By and large, Seán Manchester prefers not to add fuel to the fire. Equally, he stands by what is already established by him on record. Extracts which appeared online from Seán Manchester's "Aftermath of the Highgate Vampire" were merely a summation of what had gone before to counter the misinformation put out by Farrant and company on a daily basis. For some inexplicable reason, "Aftermath" is no longer online. It will hopefully one day emerge in hardcopy form, unexpurgated and complete.

Seán Manchester does not "feed off" anything. His infrequent actions over this matter are defensive (due to constant attacks upon him, his family and friends by a tiny clique of malicious cyberstalkers) where the law has been breached and/or he and his family are endangered.

Even so, Seán Manchester's rebuttal statements and publications such as "Aftermath" emerge only once in a blue moon.

His supporters, on the other hand, are free to say and do as they feel appropriate. He might or might not approve, but would not seek to control what they do, nor can he.

It has already been established that he would much rather everyone ignore the likes of Farrant. Since that is not going to happen, a refutation statement by Seán Manchester might appear from time to time.

The Overseer said...

"By and large, Seán Manchester prefers not to add fuel to the fire."

Prefers not to, but inevitably does. And if it's not him, it's shady characters like yourself, doing it "for" him.

"...merely a summation of what had gone before to counter the misinformation put out by Farrant and company on a daily basis."

The same kind of things already founds in his book and scattered throughout the VRS's website and now its Facebook groups.

"For some inexplicable reason, "Aftermath" is no longer online. It will hopefully one day emerge in hardcopy form, unexpurgated and complete."

I presume that David or one of his associates reported it to Clearblogs.

If it does get published in hardcopy form, then that proves the adding-fuel-to-the-fire bit, doesn't it?

"Seán Manchester does not "feed off" anything. His infrequent actions over this matter are defensive (due to constant attacks upon him, his family and friends by a tiny clique of malicious cyberstalkers) where the law has been breached and/or he and his family are endangered."

Uh huh. I guess that's left to the VRS and the FoBSM on his unsanctioned "behalf", eh? That is, of course, assuming that Manchester doesn't assume aliases himself. Wouldn't be the first time.

"His supporters, on the other hand, are free to say and do as they feel appropriate. He might or might not approve, but would not seek to control what they do, nor can he."

No, why would he? After all, in context, one could say they'd be doing his "dirty work" for him, wouldn't they?

"It has already been established that he would much rather everyone ignore the likes of Farrant."

Which is odd that the President of the VRS doesn't stop its members going on about Farrant in the first place? And that he follows blogs dedicated to Farrant, also.

LinkWithin

Related Posts with Thumbnails