Diminishing responsibility

BBC

It seems Della Farrant's got an axe to grind with Barbara Green. For some reason.

Green's president of the Yorkshire Robin Hood Society and believes Robin Hood was buried at Kirklees Hall Estate.

She also has the rare distinction of being aligning with both sides of the Highgate vampire case's feuding overlords, Sean Manchester and David Farrant. They've both served as Patrons of the YRHS; the latter as part of a 'calculated snub', in Kai Roberts' opinion.

As of this writing, Della's devoted three blog entries to Green's 2001 book, Secrets of the grave (here, here and here), all of which take potshots at her; increasingly personal in attack. Indeed, the latter post makes several jibes about her mental state—'Anyway, a parting treat is presented below for any of you who can stomach it – it might help if you are a fan of the film ‘One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest’'—etc.

Della never really explains her 'beef', but perhaps the clue's in her aggrandising coverage of David's role as patron. She 'lets him off' scott-free: 'As a well known psychic investigator of some standing, and ‘considered the sane one of the bunch’ viz the YRHS, David Farrant (who was at one stage persuaded against his better judgement to act as  Patron for said ‘society’) has benefited from a mutually reciprocal relationship over the years with Dr David Hepworth, a close friend and practical and academic advisor of Lady Armytage (referred to by some as her manager).'

It's rather strange she'd give her husband 'innocent fair maiden' status, chaste as the driven snow, as 'persuaded' waylays the reader into thinking he was somehow conned into the role. Far from it, it's something he openly embraced. 

I'm sure, for instance, that no one made him take part in a 'blessing ceremony' at the gravesite on 20 April 2005 in the presence of film cameras, any more than anyone made him pen this letter to the Halifax Courier in 2008. I'm equally sure no one made him promote Green's article on the supposed Kirklees conspirary in 2009—even though he pooh-poohed the idea two years before, voicing scepticism the day after that post, yet still choosing to be the society's patron.

Della also overlooks the fact that he attempted to arrange another visit to the gravesite—in 2010 (part 1; part 2). If these were mere blips in David's 'better judgement', then let me remind you he maintained his role as the YRHS's patron over a ten year period.

Indeed, the tenth year, 2010, marked a turning point. He was replaced—David says he 'resigned'—by a new Patron: John Pope de Locksley, better-known as John Pope.

Could this all stem from a case of 'sour grapes'? If not, why did David align himself with the society for so long? Perhaps the answer's in his latest post on his involvement with the YRHS: 'There has also been renewed activity on the filmed project involving Gareth J. Medway, Barbara Green and a couple of other assistants on the subject of Robin Hood’s (reputed) grave at Kirklees. I understand this film is now near completion, and will be released publicly later this year. Maybe even at the Brighouse Gala? – and I cannot think of a more glamorous and appropriate setting for its debut.'

It's the same film for which the camera's rolled on David's blessing ceremony in 20 April 2005.

Grave Intent, Pt. 2

In the previous instalment, I discussed the strange goings-on at Kirklees Hall Estate, surrounding the alleged burial place of Robin Hood. Now, we'll look at plans underway for another venture to the much-trespassed spot.

Recent postings on The Supernatural World forum have concerned the Kirklees "mystery". And not just talking about it, but a proposed second "visit". When Barbara (aka "greenorchid") asked David whether any "progress" had been made at the site, David replied:

I'm afraid the answer to that is that we can't really know, Barbara. At least, not without visiting the site again. Maybe next year Gareth and myself can visit you again, but this year is out for me as I have another book to get finished. Might even be able to pick up Black Orchid on the way - that's if she wants to go, of course. If she does, would you be able to put the 3 of us up for a couple of nights? Its too far for a day trip!

I am quite convinced that the fact Robin Hood's Grave is situated on a ley line (possibly at the intersection of two) has something to do with all the reports of 'resless phenomena'. But this would involve furthe inspection on site. I might well write to manager David Hepworth again and see if he could get permission to hold a nightly vigil there. Attitudes might have changed a little now with the demise of Lady A; well, I can all but try. But I'd obviously keep you up to date.

So, that's the answer really . . . it would mean going there again.

"Black Orchid" (actual name unknown) is a fellow forum member, who went under the "Clarmonde" moniker on the Arcadia forum. Oh, and "the demise of Lady A"? That'd be Lady Armytage who died in 2008. She opposed repeated requests by the YRHS to gain further access to the site, which was on her property. As we've established, the YRHS proceeded without her permission, anyway.

Blackorchid expressed immediate interest, prompting David to say "Well, that's settled then; providing Barbara agrees. I could aim to get it arranged for next May?" The May date will become significant soon enough. But here's what Barbara wrote back:

Hi David--that's a great idea, but doubt you will get permission! I dont even know if the boys, Hep and Holl, are still there--well if they are they are keeping very quiet--so is everybody else! In fact it is absolutely no different to when her ladyshop was around! And before anyone makes the sarky comment , my involvement would be purely along Church lines, with the palm crosses and holy water as I did before Gareths and your ceremony.

I have to be careful also if it came to wall-scaling---I have crumbling bones so dont want to fall, though when my dog pulled me over last year and I broke my wrists I healed up okay.

To which David replied:

Thanks Barbara. Then consider it arranged (well, subject to details etc).

When my next book is out this year, I will have far more time. I suggested May as you know my thoughts about the cold weather. I have re-found DH's address, but if not him, I will write or speak to somebody.

And next time, when I give you any money towars the food, I will make sure I hand it to you personally.
Okay, Robin Hood's Grave, here we come again!

The thread quickly devolved into the so-called conspiracy surrounding Red Monkey's post-production status of the documentary. Barbara seems oblivious to the audacity in criticising the film company for requesting permission from Lady Armytage to use the Kirklees footage. The same footage, mind you, that concerns YRHS members trespassing on her property and follows it up with more references to trespassing:

Against our verys trong advice, Andy went to Kirklees to ask for permission to release the film--and got a flea in his ear we presume, but the point was our ceremony was only about 10 minutes in a 90 minute film--something could have been doen if we could not release the real ceremony.

Whether David will get permission to revisit I dont know, and he cant climb over the wall cos of his dodgy foot and back--watch this space,

It's possible that Barbara isn't familiar with the concept of location permission. But considering the lengths she and her "merry men" have gone to show their so-called "respects" to the gravesite, it's also possible that she doesn't give a toss.

Later on, David discusses travel arrangements for the upcoming "investigation" even though he hasn't secured permission to visit the site. More audacity concerning the footage shortly follows thereafter:

And yes, I'll get the transportation arranged somehow. Well, we've already got out destination arranged (thamks Barbara) so we can just take it from there. Try and get permission for an official visit to Robin Hood's Grave to be arranged. It has been done before, so there shouldn't be to much problem (well, hopefully!). Will let you know once I hear.

The coptright issue is not so simple. The copyright of any film remains in the hands of the people who filmed it - not in the hands of people who may have participated in any filming. But having said that, I do feel that Red Monkey Films remain inder some moral obligation to give us a copy of the film we all helped them with. Just have to see how they respond.

Yes, that's right: "moral obligation". The guy who trespassed on private property and participated in an unsanctioned ritual on a tomb, expects Red Monkey to live up to a "moral obligation". Further on, in the midst of discussing attempts at arranging permission, he goes ahead and confirms the date for the "visit", anyway. However, his tone is obviously more reserved as I raised just how dodgy their actions are during the course of the thread:

On the other matter of the Robin Hood investigation, as I told you last night, I shall be phoning the manager of the Kirklees Estate to get permission organised. In fact I tried earlier but no reply, so I will try again this evening. I will obviously let you, Barbara and Gareth know in private what he says and the way arrangements are progressing, but there's still plenty of time left yet. I will not be posting up the progress of these arrangements here for the simple reason that 1) I think most people would find this a little boring and 2) I am not obligated to discuss the private content of arrangements being made of any Society investigations. In fact, I am not evn obligated to discuss the results of any such investigations unless I choose to do so, but the latter remains a matter at my discretation. I have simply said that the Robin Hood investigation remains incomplete and (answering a question from Barbara on ley lines, I believe) said that nothing further could be done until another on-site visit was arranged. That is still how the matter stands, and I can confirm another visit will be made to Kirklees next May. I can tell you however, that I have since spoken to Gareth, and he is all for the idea of another visit.

The sad thing is, there are legitimate means by which they could visit the site. The Kirklees Council has a page for people wanting to visit to Robin Hood's Grave:

The site is on privately-owned land at Kirklees Hall and occasional visits are arranged through the walks programme of Calderdale Heritage Walks. Booking via the visitor centre is essential.

In fact, Barbara's YRHS listing on the Council's website (ironically) advises: "(For advice regarding access to Robin Hood's Grave please ring Hebden Bridge Tourist Office on 01422 843831.)". Clearly, she should take her own advice.

Grave Intent, Pt. 1

I don't usually discuss the Kirklees Vampire Case on this blog, but the latest rumblings of a proposed "investigation" are notable for their sheer audacity.

On April 22, 1990, Sean Manchester conducted an "unofficial vampire hunt" at the Kirklees Hall Estate, to determine the source of alleged supernatural phenomena reported in the area. He had previously requested permission to hold a "vigil" on the grounds from its owner, Lady Margarete Armytage. When this wasn't granted, he proceeded with the hunt, anyway. This act was subsequently watered down by the Vampire Research Society.

Nearly 15 years later, the site was trespassed by another group. It was lead by Barbara Green, president and founder of the Yorkshire Robin Hood Society (YRHS). Also present were Catherine Fearnley, Gareth J. Medway and David Farrant, the Society's Patron. Their intent: to "conduct a full-scale exorcism at the grave". This occurred on April 20, 2005.

So, what's the Robin Hood connection? The grave in question is (allegedly) the last resting place of the legendary outlaw. However, the evidence for this claim is incredibly flimsy (see: here, here and here). Yet, it's not Robin's ghost who's meant to haunt the area, but a "wicked prioress" who (allegedly) bled him to death at Kirklees Gatehouse, nearby. Historical record is noticeably silent on this (alleged) murderess.

Back to the "exorcism". What's the connection between this spectre to the grave? Sightings of a strange apparition have been reported there, and according to Farrant, Green, herself, actually witnessed it "pointing" at the tomb. Armed with this "proof", the following rationale and course of action took place:

Stories and controversy continued to surround the grave until, in the latter part of 2004, the Yorkshire Robin Hood Society decided that perhaps the best way to 'quiet' the restless phenomenon said to haunt the grave, and to thereby put at rest the fears of many local residents in the process, was to conduct an official exorcism at the gravesite to dispel the malevolent force - or forces - there.

The nature of this "malevolent force" has wavered over time. Indeed, despite Farrant's dismissals of the vampire hypothesis in the same article, Green previously gave it some serious consideration. At one point, after Manchester offered his patronage to the YRHS, he had proposed a vampire theory to her, concerning Robin Hood's death. When she was interviewed by Rosemary Ellen Guiley for Vampires Among Us (New York: Pocket Books, 1991), she told her that "it seemed worth pursuing" (129).

Indeed, the book also relates a visit Green made to the tomb with "a small band of like-minded friends, dressed in period costumes from Robin Hood's day" in April 1990, where they found "the body of a goat with its throat torn open, which they took as another sign of something evil afoot" (130).

Clearly, the prospect of "something evil" at the site has long influenced the YRHS's so-called "investigations" of the tomb. Their desire to dispel it, has even lead them to breaking the law. You see, none of the visits to the tomb were authorised by the property's owner, Lady Armytage. The "full-scale exorcism" of April 20, 2005, was also unauthorised as Barbara boasts (see May 23, 2010 at 07:02 comment):

Local people have always gone up to the grave so finally that is what we did. When we heard all the posh or “important”people were allowed access of course we were miffed. So okay we did get a bit infected with the spirit of Robin Hood–it was exciting trespassing and we felt we had a right to show our respects, even if some people deny his existence there are plenty of other bodies on the hillside, outside the consecrated grounds of the nunnery.

Yet, the "respects shown" mainly consisted of an hour-long pagan ceremony conducted by Medway, in which he invoked three ancient Greek goddesses: Athena, Hecate and Themis. Did any overt manifestations of supernatural activity occur while this ritual was performed? Here's what Medway reported: "What I did notice was that, when I arrived, I felt very cold and my nose kept running, but that after the ritual I did not notice the temperature at all." David elaborates on this seemingly unnatural coldness in the same article:

This group, accompanied by some others, met at the grave site at around 7 p.m. - several of them having approached from different directions to avoid suspicion from one large group of people travelling together.

It was a forlorn evening; not too cold, but a stubborn 'dampness' pervaded the atmosphere. As well, all observed a distinct 'coldness' that seemed to encompass the actual grave within an area of two feet or more. Thermal readings confirmed this, but compass alignments reacted unpredictably - although the latter could have been caused by the old rusty railings that surrounded most of the grave.

The need to "avoid suspicion" was necessary, of course, because they were trespassing on private property. Another explanation for the mysterious cold and "dampness", which is unexplored in David's report, is the actual location itself. Here's a picture of the tomb. See if you can work out why these atmospheric conditions may have been present during the "fast approaching darkness":


One also has to question the "respects shown" when you realise that this ritual was also filmed for an intended documentary. As Barbara's chronology reveals, Red Monkey had approached the YRHS in 2004, requesting an interview for an upcoming feature. The film's still in post-production, which Barbara believes is part of a conspiracy to stifle her Society's efforts (note her comments under username "damiana").

In the next instalment, I'll discuss current plans for another venture to the gravesite.

Interview with Barbara Green

During the course of my discussions over at The Supernatural World forum, I took the opportunity to interview Barbara Green ("greenorchid") for her thoughts on the Highgate Vampire Case, and her interaction with the main parties behind it.

She is the president and founder of the Yorkshire Robin Hood Society. Its current patron is David Farrant; a post formerly held by Seán Manchester. So how did she get mixed up in it all?

I found out by sending her a list of questions via the forum ("Hi Barbara", 16 August 2010 - 03:36 AM), which she responded to ("Hi Barbara", 18 August 2010 - 03:05 AM). I've reconsituted them here in interview form, thus my (originally) numbered questions are replaced with my name and subsequent abbreviations and applied this same procedure to her responses. However, I've retained her upper case replies.

Anthony Hogg: What drew your interest to the Highgate Vampire Case? How did you first hear about it?

Barbara Green: I MET SM [Seán Manchester -ed.] AT THE BARNET CARNIVAL IN 1986. HE CALLED HIMSELF LORD MANCHESTER. I WAS THERE TO MEET JOHN POPE DE LOCKSLEY OF THE LONDON ROBIN HOOD CLUB. SM OFFERED TO BECOME PATRON OF THE YRHS---PLEASE NOTE OFFERED--NOT ASKED BY ME!!!! HE SOLD ME HIS BOOK THV [The Highgate Vampire -ed.].

AH: You were convinced enough of Sean Manchester's claims that you made him the Patron for your Yorkshire Robin Hood Society. On what grounds did you find him suitable for the role?

BG: NO--YOUR ASSUMPTION ISNT QUITE CORRECT---WE NEEDED A PATRON-LADY ARMYTAGE HAD REFUSED. HE ASKED TO BE OUR PATRON. WE THOUGHT HE WAS A LORD AND DESCENDED FROM LOrD BYRON--AS HE CLAIMED.HE THEN TOLD ME ABOUT THE VAMPIRE STUFF.

AH: At some point, your views on vampires changed. What caused you to disbelive in them?

BG: I SUPPOSE AFTER SM STARTED ACCUSING ME OF STUPID STUFF AND I THOUGHT ABOUT IT, I REALISED IT WAS ALL CLAPTRAP IT DID NOT MAKE SENSE FOR VAMPIRES TO EXIST AND HIS KIRKLEES STORY WAS DICKIPOGGY

AH: Later on, you made acquaintance with David Farrant, Manchester's "adversary". How did you get into contact with him?

BG: VIA SM'S INFO HE KEPT SENDING ME ABOUT DAVID.

AH: Eventually, Manchester was replaced as the Patron of your Society, and Farrant substituted in his place. What did you feel that he could bring to the role?

BG: IT WAS JUST HONORARY--BUT HE HAS BEEN VERY SUPPORTIVE WHEN NECESSARY AND HE DID THE EXORCISM!!

AH: What are your thoughts on Farrant's claims of the "psychic entity with vampire-like characterisitics" alleged to haunt Highgate Cemetery?

BG: I GUESS THATS WHAT HE SAW AND THE BEST WAY HE COULD DESCRIBE IT--you problem seems to be with him saying vampire like characteristics, but that is only a descriptive term, it doesnt mean he thought it was a vampire.

AH: Did you ever become a member of any of the organisations associated with Manchester or Farrant? The Vampire Research Society? The British Psychic and Occult Society or the Highgate Vampire Society?

BG: NO

AH: Do you believe that any supernatural events took place at Highgate Cemetery? If so, what do you think the source of this manifestation was?

BG: WHAT I BELIEVE IS NEITHER HERE NOR THERE, AS WITH KIRKLEES WE HAVE TO BELIEVE IT AS TOLD OR NOT BELIEVE IN THE SUPERNATURAL AT ALL; THERE WAS NO DOUBT A LOT OF DICKIPOGGY ALSO AND COMPETITION TO BE THE STAR OF THE SHOW; HOWEVER, I THINK GHOSTS ARE MORE "BELIEVABLE" AS THEY JUST FLOAT AROUND, WHEREAS A VAMPIRE HAS A PHYSICAL PRESENCE, LIVES INA COFFIN, BITES PEOPLE ETC--SO HAVE ALWAYS SAID THE DIFFUCLTIES ASSOSCIATED WITH VAMPIRES ROAMING AROUND JUST COULD NOT SUPPORT THEIR EXISTNCE.IF PEOPLE WERE DYING INEXPLICABLY FROM BLOOD LOSS ALL OVER THE PLACE, DOCTORS, CORONERS AND POLICE WOULD BE INVOLVED, NOT TO MENTION BEREAVED RELATIVES WHOSE COFFINS WERE VANDALISED.

I'd like to thank Barbara for her participation. Just to clarify on a few things, though. The "Kirklees Story" mentioned is something I've previously covered. John Pope de Locksley's also been given a look-in. I've also touched on Manchester's Byronic claims. Lastly, the "exorcism" Barbara mentions, concerns a blessing ceremony held by David Farrant and Gareth J. Medway on the Kirklees estate, to dispell "malefic force reputed to haunt Robin Hood's Grave".

Awaiting Moderation and Other Escapades

Captain Free Speech is at it again. Two of my comments are "awaiting moderation", yet, they've still managed to elicit one-sided replies.

I responded to Barbara's claims that I'd been "trashing" her and invited her to cite examples. I also extended an offer to her: would she be up for an interview for this blog? Y'know, so she could have her say on the Highgate hijinks and such. My comment is still pending publication, but here's her inadvertent (?) reply:


Firstly, it's nice to know she reads my blog (hi Barbara!). Second, the "reply" she's referring to is probably my "Tunnel Vision" post, in which I questioned her selective reading of my blog's content. That is, focusing on my criticisms of Manchester, while neglecting what I've uncovered about David's dodgy output. As you can see, she's gone and done it again ("manchestermalarky"). Nonetheless, my offer of an interview (if Barbara really feels like she's being misrepresented) still stands.

After Barbara's "social list" rant, Dave offers her comfort to her; suggesting that I should be ignored. It's not the first time he's tried to "silence" his associates.

To be honest, I used to think "[h]ardly anybody" read my blog, too. The lack of feedback made me think I was just pissing in the wind. That is, until I installed Feedjit. Now, it's become very apparent that I do have readers and funnily enough, most of 'em come from the UK. Just like Dave. Sure, they don't post on here. But they don't need to, either. Point is, they're reading the thing and that's what counts.

But wait, how does David know that people rarely comment on here? Why, that could only mean he reads my blog! Hi Dave! Who needs tonnes of readers when I have an "esteemed" (ahem) psychic investigator reading my blog?

And what's this about doing myself "far more harm with [my] false assumptions and conclusions, than [he and Barb] do by not answering"? Surely, making generic, unsubstantiated claims about me without directly addressing what I say, only makes them look dodgy? As Dave points out, I put my name to my blog. That's my accountability. I frequently cite their writings. I link to 'em. If I say so-and-so is up to no good, then I'll give my reasons why. I'll show you. I trust the readers to make up their own minds from the conclusions they draw. Unfortunately, Dave doesn't share this ethic, as we'll see from his response to my other "awaiting moderation" comment.


Talk about killing two birds with one stone. Not only did Dave quote from an unmoderated comment, but he even deleted the link I posted. In case you're wondering, it was this one.

It's pretty odd that Dave claims I'm introducing my "personal views and arguements [sic]", when I was directly addressing one of his claims. Basically, he told me (via his blog) that the person who sent him "my" home address, was an Arcadia forum member named "George". I asked him for proof. It's true that he never said he received the info by e-mail. But, as Dave and himself were/are both members of the same forum, it's a logical conclusion. I mean, what's the alternative route? They met up in a pub? George sent him a letter? How else would he have passed along the info to him? Dave's noticeably hesitant in revealing just how the stalker acquired "my" info. And why? Simply because I asked him for proof of his claim.

If Dave's that concerned about the stalker's privacy, why would Dave publicly reveal that he had my home address in the first place? Why would he subsequently reveal this mystery chap, to be a member of the Arcadia forum? What's to lose in sending me the e-mail (or other means) by which he received info about myself?

Let's find out, shall we? Here's my follow-up reply. It's presently "awaiting moderation":

My Reconciliatory Efforts

Despite Barbara's claim that I'm a "rabble rowser" [sic], even she's probably aware of my efforts in trying to get Manchester and Farrant to resolve their differences.

Even though David likes to pretend that the feud between his "side" and Manchester's is a one-sided affair, it's clear that it helps keep their respective careers afloat. At the very least, by "dismantling" their competition. During my usual coverage of the shenanigans these two sides engage in, a shining light emerged during "discussions" on John Baldry Cat's blog, The Cat's Miaow.

It was clear that after forty years, all the claims and counter-claims by both parties were getting pretty circular and not really going anywhere, so why not try another approach: reconciliation. The following is a chronicle of my attempts to get the two to meet up.

1. Laying Down the Gauntlet
2. One Step Closer
3. Stumbling Block?
4. Flies at the Picnic
5. I'm Not Liking This
6. Ok, Now We're Getting Somewhere
7. Postscript to the Previous Post
8. More Pussyfooting Around
9. Glimmer of Hope Still Remains
10. Trying to Restore Some Balance
11. Popping in to Check-Up on Things
12. I'm Checking In
13. They Can't Bloody Help Themselves
    

So, if I'm a mere "rabble rowser", then I've at least had a crack at building a bridge between the two sides. Can Barbara claim the same thing?

Tunnel Vision

Even though I've been referred to as an "obsessed scandal-seeker" by David, it's clear that he harbours such activities on his own blog. The latest example concerns Barbara Green.

It began with a simple request: "I tried the e-mail addy on your Robin Hood site a while ago, but it appears to be defunct. Do you have something more current?" She didn't respond, instead, posting a diatribe about a "mancurian biog–what was it called–oh I remember, Stray Wits."

Barbara often talks in riddles, but it's easy to decipher was this allusion meant. According to the Urban Dictionary, "mancurian" is defined as "someone from Manchester, or something related to Manchester." This is not a geographic reference, in context. It's a cryptic reference to the man she had a falling out with, some time ago: Sean Manchester.

And the "Stray Wits" reference? An obvious dig at Stray Ghosts, Manchester's unpublished memoir. Though, as you can see, it's not a blog as Green infers.

Thus, when David said "Nobody I know seems the least bit interested in yourself but just view you as an ‘obsessed scandal-seeker’: one you seeks to invent ‘scandal’ when in fact none really exists", we really have to wonder about the activities taking place on his blog. In fact, shortly after I pointed out the following - "As to seeking scandal, you should see what happened when I tried to ask Barbara Green, one of his associates, for her e-mail addy. Basic query, right? Well, it's not how she responded" - Barbara "coincidentally" posted a follow-up to her diatribe-response!


The "searching questions" I ask of "his holiness" is yet another reference to Manchester, as attested by the "esteemed bishop" reference. She's right in saying that I don't have a "side". I've made this clear, previously:

In fact, at various intervals, I've been accused of being on either side of the party. Neutrality is not something generally appreciated in this Case. It seems you gotta bat for one team or the other.

I think that's a preposterous expectation.

And:

The main parties presenting their claims are clearly as dodgy as the other. My advice to people who express doubt for both sides, but still find themselves siding with one over the other, is that's it's like picking the lesser of two snakeoil salesmen: why would you choose either one?

But if Barbara admires my "searching questions" of Manchester, why does she completely ignore the "searching questions" I've asked of David? Could it have anything to do with him being the Patron of her Yorkshire Robin Hood Society, a post formerly held by Manchester? Is it because he's assisted her with advertorial practices?

Barbara's incorrect in saying that I won't listen to any of her "rational and accurate explanations". Hell, one of the reasons I wanted to contact her, was to request an interview for this blog. Y'know, to give her side of the story. It's an offer that still stands.

Healthypages Double Standards

Wow! Now this one took me by surprise.

I got a notification from Healthypages, ("New Private Message at Healthypages", Friday, 5 March 2010 2:59:29 AM), a forum I recently joined to discuss the advertorial practices that took place there, concerning the Highgate Case. Here's the e-mail:

DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL!
***************************

Dear Anthony Hogg,

You have received a new private message at Healthypages from Infractor, entitled "You have received an infraction at Healthypages".

To read the original version, respond to, or delete this message, you must log in here:
http://www.healthypages.co.uk/forum/private.php

This is the message that was sent:
***************
Dear Anthony Hogg,

You have received an infraction at Healthypages.

Reason: Ban User for Good
-------

-------

This infraction is worth 100 point(s) and may result in restricted access until it expires. Serious infractions will never expire.

All the best,
Healthypages
***************

Again, please do not reply to this email. You must go to the following page to reply to this private message:
http://www.healthypages.co.uk/forum/private.php

All the best,
Healthypages

I signed in to check what this private message was, and it was a doozy alright:

The severe (double standard) actions taken by Healthypages are quite a contrast to the blatant advertorial practices by Barbara Green over at the Arcadia forum.

I mean, essentially, they banned me for posting a thread in which I linked to one of my blog entries, showing that certain Highgate "investigators" had used one of their threads for advertorial practices. The thread was allowed, but my exposure of it wasn't? What the hell?

For the curious, here's the offending blog entry I posted.

When a News Update Isn't a News Update

In "Turning the Wheels of Self-Publicity", I covered the use of (undisclosed) advertorials on matters relating to the Highgate Vampire and/or affiliated items.

The latest example has been taking place in a thread on the Arcadia forum, called "New Book--the Robin Hood/Highgate Conspiracy".

The mysterious damiana (Barbara Green) initiated the topic:

A new book written by a conspiracy theory expert will be out in around two weeks, in which a chapter is devoted to this subject. Right up to the Red Monkey film team pulling out after they had been interviewed by Lady Armytage and her flunkeys, and the recent information that a local councillor was involved.

This provoked some interest among other members. However, I saw through this ruse and called her out on it.

Her response? Here:

It was just a news update--is that a problem? I havent seen the FT- they seemed scared off the Kirklees story some years ago, I do know that! When I get my freebie copy of the new book I will send you more info--is that a problem, or don't you want to be known to be interested in a very interesting story because the Powers that Be, both in this world and no longer in it, can still do their stuff, wouldnt be surprised if it was the funny handshake lot. If the story of Robin Hoods Grave upsets you do by all means, keep off it instead of moaning that you dont like it,
tata

This resulted in some cross-promotion from David:

Yes I'd like to know more about this book, Barbara - so could you tell me in a PM. Not a word would pass my lips without your prior authorization! After all, I am the Patron of the Yorkshire Robin Hood Society, let it be remembered!

Fortunately, another member (DVB) picked up on something slightly amiss:

Hi Damiana.
Could you clarify? In your first post in this thread you said there was a chapter on this subject in A new book written by a conspiracy theory expert. In your most recent post you say it's actually what I wrote but it has been edited.
Is it your book, copy-edited by someone else; or is it a book edited by someone else in which you have a chapter?
And can you say who the conspiracy theory expert is?

She was noticeably unwilling to disclose their identity in her response.

In my follow-up reply, I had to explain the difference between a "news update" and an advertorial. For those not-in-the-know, an advertorial is

an advertisement written in the form of an objective article, and presented in a printed publication—usually designed to look like a legitimate and independent news story.

They're a pretty shady form of "journalism". In fact, in Barbara's own United Kingdom, the "UK's Advertising Standards Authority requires advertorials to be clearly marked as such."

In light of the obvious nature of this "news update", I speculated that the book's author is Barbara herself (it's pretty obvious, from her slip-up) and "it's probably going to be published by the BPOS or an affiliated publisher".

Whether this'll be the case, remains to be seen.

Turning the Wheels of Self-Publicity

The "conversation" that ensues between songstress (Patsy) and David Farrant on the "Highgate Vampire" thread on the Healthypages forum seems innocent at first.

She gets the ball rolling with this:

Dear All,

Has anyone heard of the cause celebre of the 1970's named 'The Highgate Vampire', and if so, does anyone remember it?

Love,
Patsy.

Other contributors jump in (including Dennis aka "Vampirologist"). The 35th post on the thread details her experience with the VRS:

Vamp,

I contacted the VRS President several times in 2003 and 2004, by e-mail, asking for details of the case. No reply was forthcoming, until I asked to see archived material, which is advertised on the VRS website. A very curt and nasty reply was sent to my work e-mail address, asking why 'someone from ***** would be interested in the Highgate case' and went on to say that 'archived material and other information about the case would not be disclosed 'to people outside of the investigation.' I decided to search elsewhere for the information about the case. The VRS President had my e-mail address at work, and sent me a very nasty e-mail, which was covered in pictures of other people, and which could have cost me my job.

Oh who, who could ever help her in her plight against the evil VRS dragons? Who would be her knight in shining armour?

What's that coming over the hill? Is it...yes, it's Dave!

Hi Everyone

Just wanted to post here because I know Songstress personally and I was the person central to the 'Highgate Vampire Affair' back in the late 60/s early 70/s.

First of all (very briefly), I would like to ask Songstress to keep posting. After all, Songstress did start the thread and I do not feel it right that she feels it necessary to 'abandon' her own thread just because of some 'minor intimidation' about the report she is undertaking. I have seen much of Songstresses research, and I can verify that she is totally objective. (Other people might not be, but that is really their problem!).

She expresses eternal gratitude:

Hello Mr Farrant,

I am glad that you take my research seriously. It's a long-awaited study into an old case, as you know.

You will be a great asset to HP, with your knowledge and experience in the field of paranormal research.

The banter labours on. David voices his enthusiasm for Patsy's research:

For Patsy,
I certainly look forward to seeing you again at the end of the week, Patsy, and to reading your report on the Highgate ‘vampire’ case. Hopefully this will be published in a month or so, and I can only say that a thorough report on that case is long overdue. (36 years or so ‘long overdue’ – although I am obviously not implying this relates to yourself!).

He even treads the fine line of promotion in his appraisal:

HIGHGATE ‘VAMPIRE’ REPORT,
I have just been privileged to see an advanced copy of the "Highgate Vampire Report" (52 pages) by Patsy which has been referred to earlier on here, and which is scheduled for release before Christmas. I mustn’t give too much away at this stage, but, as I was involved personally at the centre of the whole business back in the early 1970’s, Patsy has given me her permission to give a very brief synopsis . . .

Patsy's humility (bless her!) shines through once again:

Hello David,

Thank you for your appraisal. I am pleased that you find the report useful. I am rather an ingenue when it comes to my work being published. I was simply the scribe; many other people helped, especially with the research material and personal visits to the places mentioned in the book.

The report that they refer to, is Patsy "songstress" Langley's The Highgate Vampire Casebook (2007). It weighs in at a mammoth 52 pages.

But it's a shame that with all the slobbering going on, neither of them sought to disclose the fact that David's publishing wing, the British Psychic and Occult Society was actually responsible for its publication. Its Amazon.co.uk listing and an advertisement for the report in David's website, give the game away.


Despite the formal, gentle tone they use in the forum thread, they were already in cahoots beforehand.

So, essentially, they turned the Healthypages forum thread into a protracted, saccharine infomercial to hawk their wares.

Disturbingly, shades of this appear to be occurring on the Arcadia forum. A mysterious member named damiana recently posted this:

A new book written by a conspiracy theory expert will be out in around two weeks, in which a chapter is devoted to this subject. Right up to the Red Monkey film team pulling out after they had been interviewed by Lady Armytage and her flunkeys, and the recent information that a local councillor was involved.

Kepp you posted

For some reason, damiana doesn't disclose the fact that she's actually Barbara Green, an associate of David. Her Red Monkey Films references are dealt with on her "Yorkshire Robin Hood Society, Summary 1983--2007" page.

The Red Monkey Films' "Big Apes" page even contains a few familiar faces.

Is Barbara secretly promoting a book she's written, or one by an affiliate? We'll have to wait and see, as she hasn't provided any further posts on the matter, as of this writing.