David claims strong principles when it comes to discussing the Highgate Vampire Case or publishing copyright-violating satirical comics, that target his "enemies" (i.e., people critical of his claims):
That comic ‘satirized’ myself as much as everyone else. But I was not responsible for its original publication;; including, I might add, depicting you as a ‘water hogg’ (or whatever it was) who had joined forces with the ‘other camp’. Why did I re-publish it? (and its on Amazon incidentally). Because I happen to believe in freedom of speech, providing this happens to be honest and fair and does not set out to injure, libel or abuse other people.Even in dealing with the insane ramblings of Carol, he reveals, once again, an integral ethic in discussing the Case:
But my policy has always been to answer any questions about anything I may have said relating to the paranormal. And I have often gone into this question of time before. To ignore her question would otherwise be to somehow betray this basic principle.That's why it's a shame he's wildly inconsistent and can't stick to his own principles. His blog entry, "I Don't Know Why I Bother Really" was written as a response to me concerning David's various claims about the Highgate Vampire and his repeated use of the term, "vampire" despite claiming not to believe in them. Here's a snippet:
Thought I better do a Blog tonight, as Gareth is coming over tomorrow and might not get a chance then. I have already promised my “friend” The Overseer (from ‘down under’) that I answer something for him and that I’d do it on Friday. I don’t know why I bother really concerning myself with old history concerning non-existent ‘vampires’ but I have always tried to answer questions where these concern matters which are in the public domain.In response, I wrote the following comment:
Which is why it was slightly bewildering that he followed it with this:
I made no bones about this blatant contradiction:
He then offered to talk about this Case "in the public domain" by e-mail.
It goes without saying that David's claim of not wishing "to discuss Highgate, ‘vampires’ or ‘him’ [Sean Manchester -ed.] on here" is directly contradicted by multiple posts covering those topics. Indeed, his latest blog entry makes reference to being contacted by a TV company, for whom he'll be participating in "another interview on the Highgate case very soon."
Maybe he's delusional?
After all, when a member of the Arcadia forum, Caledfwlch, made very clear references and citations of David's own vampire-hunting activity (even providing photographs)...
I am not asking you to discuss "other vampire hunters" here, or "other people". I am asking you to discuss yourself and nobody else. You did, after all, once describe yourself to the media and the general public as a vampire hunter.....David not only revealed a hole in his answer-all-questions policy, but refused to even acknowledge that the person Caledfwlch was very obviously describing, was Dave himself:
To remind you again, I am NOT prepared to discuss the activities of other ‘vampires hunters’ here – or the activities of any other people for that matter.So, David's either nuttier than a fruitcake or incredibly deceptive like his old chum, the Bishop.
"By "other vampire hunters" you presumably mean other than yourself?" (says yourself)
My answer to you still stands, “Caldefwich” and I am NOT going to discuss ‘other vampire hunters’ – or rather people who claimed to be ‘vampire hunters’ and/or gave televised advice on how to destroy vampires.
Or maybe both.