Second Interview with Catherine Fearnley

Catherine certainly had some interesting things to say about her past involvement with both sides of the Highgate "feud". She kindly granted my request for a second interview.

Once again, it was conducted via e-mail. I sent her a numbered list of questions,¹ which she duly responded to.² I've retained her upper case replies, as I did with Barbara Green's responses.

Anthony Hogg: There are frequent claims that the Bishop uses aliases online. Indeed, the Bishop confirms it, but without saying what they are. In light of your background with The Cross and the Stake forum, could you tell us any of them? Conversely, do you believe that Dennis Crawford and Katrina Garforth-Bles are actual personages who use the forum?

Catherine Fearnley: I RECEIVED AN EMAIL ONCE FROM BISHOP MANCHESTER SAYING THAT IT'S ABSOLUTELY IMPERATIVE NOBODY KNOWS IT'S ME WHO IS POSTING ON THESE FORUMS HIS WORDS NOT MINE. I STUPIDLY DELETED THIS EMAIL BUT NOT BEFORE I GAVE MR. FARRANT A COPY OF THIS EMAIL WHICH HE SHOULD STILL HAVE. I KNOW THAT DENNIS CRAWFORD IS A GENUINE PERSON, WHY, BECAUSE ONE NIGHT MR. FARRANT SAID THAT DENNIS CRAWFORD APPEARED AT HIS APARTMENT/FLAT WITH MR. MANCHESTER (AS HE WAS THEN) WHICH TOOK ME BY SURPRISE BECAUSE MR. FARRANT HAD ALWAYS CLAIMED PREVIOUSLY DENNIS CRAWFORD WAS AN ALIAS. I AM NOT TOO SURE ABOUT KATRINA GARFORTH-BLES SO I CAN'T SAY ONE WAY OR ANOTHER.

AH: You mentioned that Farrant asked you to "make posts against Bishop Manchester which were of a derogatory nature so he wouldn’t have to put his name to them". What kind of posts where these? Are they still in circulation, online or otherwise?

CF: YES THIS IS WHAT MR. FARRANT ASKED ME TO DO MAKE POSTS ON HIS BEHALF, SOME OF THESE WILL INDEED BE ONLINE STILL I HAVE KEPT A COPY OF SOME OF THESE POSTS IN A NOTEBOOK THAT I HAD AT THE TIME WHICH I STILL HAVE AND NO I'M NOT GOING TO PUBLISH ANY OF THE MATERIAL ONLINE. BUT HAVING SAID THAT BISHOP MANCHESTER ALSO GAVE ME POSTS TO WRITE ABOUT MR. FARRANT SO THAT HE WOULDN'T HAVE TO LIKE I SAID PREVIOUSLY THEY ARE AS BAD AS EACH OTHER

AH: You wrote a work called The Highgate Vampire and Me. However, I've seen no details of its publication, so could you give us an insight into its general contents? Also, is it true that the manuscript was sent along to VRS-friendly sources and, if so, why?

CF: YES I DID START TO WRITE A BOOK TITLED THE HIGHGATE VAMPIRE AND ME THIS WAS OF COURSE AFTER ALL THE MALICIOUS STUFF THAT MR. FARRANT HAD WRITTEN ABOUT MYSELF, AND HE AT THE TIME SAID HE WAS GOING TO PUBLISH A BOOK ABOUT ME. THE GENERAL CONTENTS WERE ABOUT MY RELATIONSHIP WITH MR. FARRANT, AQUAINTENCE WITH BISHOP MANCHESTER, THE WHOLE HIGHGATE THING AND OF COURSE THE ROBIN HOOD NONSENSE THE FULL WORKS. I SENT THE BOOK TO VRS BASICALLY BECAUSE BISHOP MANCHESTER WAS GOING TO BE MENTIONED AND ALSO I WANTED TO CORRECT ANY OF THE DATES/TIMES EVENTS AND TO GIVE BISHOP MANCHESTER THE CHANCE TO ALTER ANYTHING OUT OF PURE COURTESY. THIS WAS NOT OF COURSE GOING TO HAPPEN TO MR. FARRANT WHO HAD ALREADY MENTIONED HIS BOOK THAT HE HAD WRITTEN ABOUT ME.

AH: You believe that the Highgate Vampire Case was a hoax. What motivations do you think its primary participants had in creating it? Do you think there was any collaboration between its two main sides at any point?

CF: I HAVE ALREADY SAID PREVIOUSLY WHY IT WAS A HOAX, BASICALLY BECAUSE ALL THE EVIDENCE STEMS BACK TO THE TWO MAIN INSTIGATORS, NO INDIVIDUAL PERSON HAS COME FORWARD, I ALSO BELIEVE THAT BISHOP MANCHESTER HAS TAPES/CD'S WHERE MR. FARRANT CAN BE HEARD DISCUSSING THE HOAX IN GREAT DETAIL, I HAVE HEARD SOME OF THESE INTERVIEWS AT SOME TIME OR OTHER.

AH: What twigged you onto the idea that the Case was a hoax at all? When did you start suspecting something was "fishy" with either side?

CF: COME ON HOW MANY PEOPLE DO YOU KNOW CLAIM TO HAVE SEEN VAMPIRES CHANGE INTO GIANT SPIDERS, APPEAR AT GATES WITH RED EYES AND APPEARS AS A MISTY SHAPE THAT DRAINS ENERGY. RUBBISH.

AH: After your role as Secretary for the BPOS was terminated, you were replaced by Patsy Langley, the author of The Highgate Vampire Casebook Files (2007). Did you have any interaction with her prior? If so, do you think she's a suitable replacement? What qualifications do you think one needs to be a BPOS Secretary?

CF: YES PATSY AND MYSELF WERE FRIENDS AT THE TIME OBVIOUSLY THINGS DIDN'T WORK OUT I WILL NOT GO INTO PERSONAL DETAILS HERE. IT DOES NOT MATTER ONE IOTA IF I THINK SHE IS A SUITABLE REPLACEMENT OR NOT, SHE'S WELCOME TO IT. WELL AS TO QUALIFICATIONS TO BE BPOS SECRETARY YOU DON'T NEED ANY APART FROM BEING WILLING TO DO MR. FARRANTS DIRTY WORK FOR HIM.

AH: Shortly after our first interview, you were targetted by the FoBSM. As was I. Do you think this shady group does more harm than help for the Bishop? Do you think he should be more vocal about their actions?

CF: I THINK THAT THE FOBSM ARE INDEED A DANGEROUS GROUP AS ARE THE VAMPIRE RESEARCH SOCIETY AS ARE THE BPOS. BUT THE FOBSM DEFINITELY DO MORE HARM THEN GOOD AND IF I WERE BISHOP MANCHESTER I WOULD WANT TO KNOW WHY ASSUMING OF COURSE HE ACTUALLY CARES ABOUT THE PEOPLE THAT ARE BEING TARGETTED.

AH: You've left the Highgate Case behind you. Do you have any other projects on the boil? Are you involved with any other organisations?

CF: YES I'VE WELL AND TRULY LEFT THE HIGHGATE CASE AND IT'S PARTICIPENTS WELL AND TRULY BEHIND. I HAVE COMPLETED A BOOK ABOUT THE HISTORY OF RAF ELVINGTON AND HAVE ONE IN THE PIPELINE ABOUT GLENN MILLER THE FAMOUS BIG BAND LEADER OF WORLD WAR 2. THE ONLY ORGANISATIONS I'M INVOLVED WITH AT THE MOMENT ARE TO DO WITH CHURCH AND I'M ALSO A MEMBER OF YORKSHIRE AIR MUSEUM, PLUS DOGS TRUST AND OTHER CHARITIES WHO NEED VITAL SUPPORT

Once again, I'd like to thank Catherine for her participation with these interviews, especially as she's "held the peace" on her involvement with the feud for a few years.

Now, some notes on content. Dennis Crawford and Katrina Garforth-Bles serve as the Vampire Research Society's International and National Secretaries, respectively. They're also moderators on The Cross and the Stake. Regarding the FoBSM targeting Catherine and myself, that's dealt with here and here. I've also (briefly) discussed Patsy Langley's involvement in the British Psychic and Occult Society.

¹ "Interview Questions", Tuesday, 7 September 2010 4:27:05 PM.

² "RE: Interview Questions", Tuesday, 7 September 2010 7:41:46 PM.

FoBSM Targets Interviewee

In the wake of my interview with Catherine, she's been "targetted" by the FoBSM, a group of largely faceless individuals who claim to act with the Bishop's "interest as they perceive that interest to be".

It's something she anticipated and resulted in receiving "3 emails, 2 virtually similar in content with a little extra added in". No surprise, given their history of targetting critics of the Bishop.¹ Indeed, she received another unsolicited e-mail shortly afterwards. However, she's stood by her answers to the interview, telling them that "unless Bishop Manchester emails or writes to me himself then I will not answer any more emails/letters" from them. It's a smart approach I'd recommend to others on the "receiving end" of their unwelcome mail. This will become apparent very shortly.

To shed a little light on this decidedly shady organisation, here's what Dennis Crawford, aka "Gothic" aka "Demonologist" aka "Vampirologist" aka "The Overseer", has to say about them: "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."

However, you've got to wonder about the autonomy of a group that has the object of their affections as an administrator of their Facebook group. After all, it's kinda like being the president of your own fan club. Indeed, his church's "To contact Bishop Seán Manchester" page provides the FoBSM's Facebook account as a means of contacting him.

Yet, despite a representative air, their authority to speak on the Bishop's behalf is effectively neutered by Bishop's own stance: "Nobody is authorised to speak in my stead." Sure, he amended his comment with a wishy-washy "This does not preclude friends and associates coming to my defence, which choice is theirs to make and not mine to deny." But without the actual authority to speak on his behalf, their e-mails and various online postings are essentially hollow copy-n-paste diatribes. Hot air, really.

Still, you'd think a Bishop would condemn such actions. At the very least, discourage them. After all, the FoBSM's Facebook group features his Path of Reconciliation blog as its website. Allowing them to proceed, unhindered, is hardly conductive to this aim. Especially when the use his name as their banner. But then again, the Bishop had no problem allowing abusive content on his blog against one of his critics. So maybe this namby-pamby, "not mine to deny" approach is for convenience's sake.

¹ See Don Ecker, amcgltd.com, Barbara Green and myself.

Interview with Catherine Fearnley

Much like Barbara Green, Catherine has had a direct association with the main factions behind the Highgate Vampire Case. However, her role with both, was much more in-depth and a compelling insight into working "behind the scenes".

I interviewed her by e-mail (Saturday, 28 August 2010 5:41:30 PM) and her answers shortly followed (Saturday, 28 August 2010 9:05:10 PM). I've changed the numbering of my questions on this blog entry to our respective names and subsequent initialisation. However, the number form was retained in her post.

Anthony Hogg: How did you first become interested in the Highgate Vampire Case?

Catherine Fearnley: I first became interested in the Highgate Vampire case through a mutual friend who had met one of the key instigators at a fair. I was led to believe that he was a proper Bishop now and also the head of the Yorkshire Robin Hood Society, I soon became acquainted with the Bishop who in turn told me about David Farrant and The Highgate Vampire. To be fair on the Bishop he advised me not to have anything to do with Farrant as I would only be hurt in the long run, but I went my own sweet way and found out the hard way.

AH: You previously served as a moderator on The Cross and the Stake. How did you obtain this post?

CF: Technically this is not correct Anthony, not only was I the moderator, I was also the creator of this group, I started this group because I had an interest in the case anyway and I was aquainted with Bishop Manchester at the time. I also noticed that they did not have any discussion groups. I was advised by Bishop Manchester not to post up any of my own thoughts on here and to let the members ‘sort themselves out’ to this end I did only posting up general responses which Bishop Manchester gave to me at the time.

AH: You were eventually expelled from this post. What were the reasons given?

CF: Again, I was not expelled as such, I left of my own accord basically because I became involved with Farrant at the time. I was told it either had to be one side or the other I could not be party to both, so I went with Farrant, then Bishop Manchester and his group then started being hostile with me for no reason other then I had become involved with Farrant, it got so bad that I had started to take out an injunction against Bishop Manchester but had to drop this due to personal reasons.

AH: Soon enough, you became the Secretary of the British Psychic and Occult Society, and the Highgate Vampire Society. How did you rise to this position? What tasks did you carry out?

CF: Well as I’ve previously stated I became involved with Farrant, he didn’t have the use of a computer then as such only a word processor so it was easier for me to do the typing and organise membership cards, newsletters, etc and so forth. Also in and among Farrant asked me to make posts against Bishop Manchester which were of a derogatory nature so he wouldn’t have to put his name to them, all of this I now deeply regret no end. In fact I regret ever getting involved with them in the first place full stop.

AH: You were eventually expelled from this role, too. How did this come about?

CF: Basicallly because Farrant got it into his head that I was heavily involved with Bishop Manchester again, also our personal relationship had deteriorated because I had changed my religion and faith for personal reasons which I won’t go into, plus another 101 reasons which all added up to one huge massive argument and Farrant and I went our own separate ways,

I want to make this absolutely clear from the start that I am NOT involved with either party anymore, nor do I wish to be. I have my own life now and it is far removed from what I had back then. I’ve met nice people, made new friends, hopefully got myself a new partner, and have moved on. Pity others cannot do the same.

AH: You've had an exclusive behind-the-scenes view of the opposing parties of the Highgate Case. What have your experiences taught you about them?

CF: Not to get involved with either party. I think that the whole Highgate nonsense came about through a hoax on both sides, both parties are as bad as each other as far as internet wars are concerned. They both use the Highgate case to make money, throw insults at each other especially family, friends, relatives, they both want to hurt and threaten all involved as much as they possibly can, it doesn’t matter to either/or if innocent people are involved with all of this. And to be honest it’s all so completely sad that this matter has been allowed to drag on 30/40 yrs down the line when both men are in their 60’s/70’s and should know better.

AH: Do you believe any supernatural phenomena took place at Highgate? If so, what form did it take?

CF: No I don’t believe that any kind of supernatural phenomena took place at Highgate, I think it was all mass hysteria at the time made no better by the public press making reports and then some crazy person organising a alleged ‘vampire hunt’ people making claims that they staked the ‘vampire’ and such forth. Where is the evidence? There is none , save from the two people who created this ‘legend’.

AH: In light of your experiences, what advice would you give to other researchers, with an interest in the Case?

CF: Don’t get personally involved with either party you will come to regret that you ever did. Keep your findings to yourself, don’t get involved in any message boards as you will become involved in a hate campaign. You will receive death threats, have your email accounts hacked into, have personal information found about you and such forth. I was told by Bishop Manchester’s group at the time that they even knew my National Insurance number and the very job centre that I used to visit at the time. The other party is just as bad for obtaining personal addresses and posting these in public so all can see also they publish private and personal correspondence to all and sundry and in booklet form, make ridicule of your religious believes if you have them and both make untrue stories about you. So take my advice and keep well clear of the lot of them.

I'd like to thank Catherine for taking the time to answer my questions. The items on stalking and harassment are quite interesting and something I've experienced, myself. There's a reason I used to employ a pseudonym, afterall. Here's why I started using my actual name. I've also previously covered the use of Catherine's name as a "front" for anti-Manchester writings.

Residue Reviews from Bygone Days

Once upon a time ago, Catherine Fearnley used to be on David's side.

She was not only elevated to the rank of his then-girlfriend, but simultaneously served as the Secretary of both his Highgate Vampire Society and British Psychic and Occult Society.

Today, I came across an Amazon review for the second edition of Farrant's Beyond the Highgate Vampire: A True Case of Supernatural Occurrences and "Vampirism" That Centred Around London's Highgate Cemetery (1994).

The reviewer is one "Ms. C. E. Fearnley". Amazingly, the author's Secretary/girlfriend of the time, gives the 43 page book a whopping five stars. Indeed, it's the only review she contributed under that username. Here's what she has to say about the book(let):

BEYOND THE HIGHGATE VAMPIRE

The 'reviews' of my book "Beyond the Highgate Vampire" by "a reader" and "Robin Crisp" are really advertizing Mr. Sean Manchester's own book "The Highgate Vampire" and it does not take too much intelligence to realise who the real author is.

Obviously it is 'somebody' who is fanatically opposed to my own book "Beyond the Highgate Vampire" - which contains full-plate photographs (many of Highgate Cemetery) and has a colour cover, incidentally.

Contrary to the mistaken statement by Amazon above (well, they can't always get it right' bless 'em') "Beyond the Highgate Vampire" IS still available; in fact, not so long ago, it came out as a 4th revised edition.

There are NO 'stolen copyright photographs' in the book as alleged by the above 'reviewer'(although there are a couple of exclusive pictures of the person who really wrote these 'reviews',) and the book (along with many other of my books on 'ghosts' and the paranormal)is available from: The British Psychic and Occult Society (BPOS) PO Box 1112, London N10 3XE so please just write for details.

Or alternatively, contact Amazon who will now be informed of their oversight.

Just to set the record straight,

Apart from the obvious hypocricy of complaining about other reviewers advertising their items - only to go ahead and do it, also - what's most amusing about this review is the sign-off name used within the account:

David Farrant, Author (of) "Beyond the Highgate Vampire"

Yeah, that's right. It looks like David's taken to dressing in drag. Oh, and giving his own books unreasonably high ratings.

Two More Bite the Dust

Just noticed that Net Curtains Lurkers is no more. Here's their final blog entry, "That's All Folks":

No one has any time to keep up this blog, so this is the last post. The Posse is grateful we still have jobs after our company cut positions and downsized. In all honesty, no one has given this blog or the “Highgate Affair” any thought until we received an email about us on another blog. Sorry to disappoint, but most people over age 17 have jobs so we are busy with those and cannot live vicariously on the internet. We all have bills and mortgages that must be paid. As the US does not have a dole, that means we must work or get our collective asses kicked to the curb.

The website will remain up as an archive until the rent runs out, so copy all this garbage to your heart’s content. After that, it will vanish into thin air.

And guys, get a life will ya?

A shame to see 'em exit the stage, as they provided some good posts during their (brief) involvement in the Highgate affair.

I am wondering who e-mailed them that reference to my blog entry, but it appears to have been misconstrued. Nonetheless, I wish 'em all the best with their future endeavors.

The second blog to bite the dust (even if it wasn't Highgate-related), is Catherine's I Did It My Way.

After Dennis' round of blather (and a follow-up comment), I checked to see if Catherine had responded to my queries yet.

Not only hadn't she, but looks like she went and deleted the whole damn blog. Ah wells, better luck next time.

More Plagiarism and Dennis at It Again

When the Bishop isn't busy plagiarising from others, he implodes and plagiarises himself.

Self-plagiarism is defined as ". . . the reuse of significant, identical, or nearly identical portions of one’s own work without acknowledging that one is doing so or without citing the original work."

Chris McAuley asked for the Bishop's views on Freemasonry. The Bishop responded with copy-n-pasted text from Ecclesia Apostolica Jesu Christi's "Freemasonry" page. Minus citation, of course.

====================

Shortly after I wrote "Dennis, the Bad Smell", he saw fit to add more comments to Catherine's blog entry. He deleted two of them (13 February 2010 04:55 and 13 February 2010 05:13), but funnily enough, wrote them under two different user names: "Vampirologist" and "Demonologist".

If his intent was to cover his tracks, he failed miserably. Clicking on both user names lead back to the same source. This possible forgetfulness is the same thing that tripped him up when he was using yet another user name, "Gothic".

But let's now address his third comment (13 February 2010 05:23), which I'll interject with comments of my own:

All I said previously about Anthony Hogg is that he likes to makes a nuisance of himself by trying to garner undeserved attention off the back of others, most notably Bishop Seán Manchester.

That's funny, because it was Dennis who initially decided to give attention to myself, courtesy of his rip-off forum (in which he also ripped-off my then-username, "The Overseer") . He also publicly revealed my real name, through an e-mail I sent to the VRS website.

Now, as to wanting to "garner undeserved attention", sure, I wouldn't like to be stalked by the likes of Dennis, but considering the Bishop's said I should be ignored...and Dennis keeps giving me coverage...whose fault is that?

Hogg is clearly prejudiced against the Catholic Church. Most Baptists probably are. I refer to remarks he made recently on Andrew Gough's Arcadia which are exceptionally anti-Catholic.

In his desperation to paint me as an anti-Catholic (to invoke Catherine's support, I imagine, as she's a Catholic herself), he neglects to say which anti-Catholic remarks I've made. No surprises there.

I have never described Hogg as a homosexual. I have no idea what he is and care even less. He likes to hide behind a mask where fangs are exhibited on his profile image, but this would-be "amateur vampirologist" (as he describes himself) is toothless when it comes to harassment. Bishop Manchester merely ignores him and I have a nom de plume so all Hogg can do is make assumptions about my identity; something he is not slow to attempt. It does not bother me in the slightest. Here is a lonely kid in Australia who wants to play with the grown-ups; problem being they are all situated about as far away from him as you could wish. So what does he do. He contents himself with silly, snide remarks and stalks the biggest fish in the pond who just ignores him.

Fair call, Dennis, himself, didn't refer to me as homosexual. But Clare and the Bish did. Did they ask me if I was? Did they point to anything that might suggest I'm gay? Noooo, of course not!

Dennis points out that I hide behind a mask. Sure, I mean would you want to dish out personal details and such, to nutters like him? What Dennis also fails to point out is a) he doesn't have a picture of himself, either b) one of the previous pictures he did have, was a skeleton in a monk's cowl c) he uses multiple user names rather than his own, even going so far as to pilfer one of mine.

As to the "amateur vampirologist" thing, yes, I write a blog inccorporating that title and it was the former user name I had on it. But I now use my real one. I should also point out that this amateur vampirologist was able to expose Dennis as a blatant plagiarist.

Funny that he also calls me "toothless when it comes to harassment". Sounds like he's saying he does a far better job at it. Freudian slip, indeed.

As to assuming Dennis' identity and his multiple user names, I've covered that here. It's pretty obvious it's him, unless, as others claim, Dennis is one of Manchester's several personas.

Now as to being ignored by the Bishop, that's not true. The Bishop saw fit to ban me from his blog after maligning me and misrepresenting my questions to him. Dennis himself doesn't ignore me, as you can see.

Nothing I have said about this pathetic stalker of Bishop Manchester could be described as "filth." Anthony Hogg's unfortunate terminology betrays something nasty about his mindset. I imagine the less we know about Hogg the better. He desperately wants controversy and will say almost anything to provoke it. Meanwhile, the world passes by and ignores him.

It can when I'm misrepresented in the way Dennis does. As to "controversy", no, I don't really want it, I'm more interested in the truth. So when I say the Bishop is a plagiarist, I can back it up.

The only person well out of his depths is this nobody in Victoria, Australia who seems to think he can become a "somebody" by attacking an elderly public figure who is very well known in the United Kingdom; someone who obviously represents everything Hogg cannot abide.

Tough!

Let's get this straight: I don't hate Manchester. He's obviously quite a deceitful person, much like Dennis, but I certainly don't hate him.

Let's also be mindful that my writings were originally issued under a pseudonym ("The Overseer"), until Dennis unveiled my identity. Why would I want to become a "somebody" under an alias? Doesn't make sense, does it.

Question is, what exactly does the Bishop represent? I've revealed him to be a plagiarist, sympathetic to BNP material and deceptive. I could even throw in self-publicity hound. Those aren't exactly characteristics I admire, so that extent, Dennis is right.

Dennis, the Bad Smell

I checked into Catherine's blog to see if she had responded to my questions (see: "A Unique Perspective").

She hasn't, yet. But someone had.

Yeah, you guessed it. Our old chum, Dennis Crawford, International Secretary of the Vampire Research Society. Looks like he read my blog entry and followed me there, like a bad smell.

Here's what he wrote (7 February 2010 08:20):

I wonder if Anthony Hogg could be talking about Bishop Seán Manchester when he refers to "Manchester"? (Rhetorical question with tongue firmly lodged in side of mouth.)

Hogg is anti-Catholic and absolutely hates Bishop Manchester. He is desperately seeking something he can quote to bulk out his blog devoted to harassing and attacking the bishop.

Incidentally, Catherine, we all know you did not "return to Manchester" but merely maintain Christian fellowship as you would with any member of your faith. Hogg is trying to go down the route that you and the bishop are somehow in cahoots together. I wonder where he got that idea from? Beyond your entering the Church (which Hogg is at loggerheads with) I daresay there is nothing else you have in common with Bishop Manchester.

Hogg wants to find manure where only wild flowers flourish.

What a sad little creature this Australian youngster has revealed himself to be!

Gets more pathetic with age, doesn't he?

Anyway, here's what I wrote back (12 February 2010 21:27):

Wow, Dennis.

Using Catherine's blog to spread your filth are we.

I asked her a simple question. She's a grown woman. She can answer it herself, without having you butt in.

Glad to see you still keep tabs on me though, despite the Bish advising that you ignore me instead.

Show's how much you actually respect his advice.

I do hope Catherine gets to see what you blokes are really like, in terms of spreading such lies like me being an anti-Catholic homosexual.

You're really stooping to new depths. Of course, that's not really all that surprising.

I do hope Catherine gets back to me, and let's hope she's more level-headed than the imbecilic International Secretary of the VRS.

A Unique Perspective

Catherine Fearnley has been on both sides of the fence. She was a former moderator on VRS-affiliated forums and later became the Secretary of the British Psychic and Occult Society (see here) and Regional Secretary of the Highgate Vampire Society (see this thread and this one).

She was also his girlfriend at the time:

As being David's girlfriend I might like to add that I am in contact with him every day via telephone and will be staying with him in June. Long distance relationships can and do work and this is one example and we are firmly at ease with the situation.

A status also acknowledged by Alexander Lucard. However, by August 2007, she had changed tack:

Barbara and Catherine have not arrived just Catherine. So please get your facts right. I am not fighting anyone’s battle on here except my own. You think it’s right to get your mates sending death threats through my email account and yet haven’t got the courage or the guts to face me personally. Says it all. The reason why they sent the death threats through the email is because they knew damn well that the police wouldn’t do anything because it’s not face to face. Very cowardly is it not. I happen to agree with the informative one (the genuine one) however, that talk is cheap and it shows the true mentality of the people publishing these false and malicious statements. And Farrant’s books are equally delusional.

So why the switch?

She vaguely alludes to it in her MySpace blog entry, "Welcome":

Hopefully now most of the harassment has now stopped regards to these people although my name keeps cropping up every now and then. Really a 40 odd year feud needs laying to rest, not only that but people who are obsessed by certain celebrities need to get a life like I have. You can like somebody without being so obsessed by them that you start attacking not only the celebrity in question but also their fans as well simply because they have contact with said celebrity every now and then. I will not allow this person to spoil my friendship that I have with this celebrity because the next time they threaten me they will receive a solicitors letter. They really are trying my patience big style.

I've decided to ask her directly, via her "Wintry Scenes" entry on I Did It My Way:


For the record, my reference to us speaking "some time ago" occurred when she was a moderator of the HVS board and I was more actively involved in my forum. You'll also see that we had an inter-forum "correspondence" of sorts (forgive the horrible formatting of the posts).

Either way, let's hope she responds.

And Speaking of Harassment...

After writing "Manchester and the Law", I came across this:

I have not been in "conversation" with DF [David Farrant -ed.] indirectly or otherwise. The comments are made about him and not TO him there is a difference. All harassing comments made by DF have been forwarded to the relevant authorities.

It deals with a series of YouTube comments posted by Mr. Farrant regarding Manchester and co.

The best part?

It was written by the same "Catherine" [Fearnley] mentioned in the case of the alleged "Police restraining Orders" filed against Manchester!

And so the plot thickens...