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.

The Amazing Adventures of Contradiction Man

Concerning Vampires

David Farrant, Arcadia forum, 25 Jan 2010 9:30 am:

I may have said, that the entity I saw at Highgate Cemetery back in 1969 had -or reflected - 'red eyes', Rain, but I neverr stated that this was a 'vampire', that is the difference!

Not sure what it was actually; but sure it wasn't a 'vampire'!

David Farrant, Hampstead & Highgate Express, 6 March 1970:

Much remains unexplained, but what I have recently learnt all points to the vampire theory being the most likely answer. Should this be so, I for one am prepared to pursue it, taking whatever means might be necessary so that we can all rest.'

David Farrant, Hampstead and Highgate Express, 2 September 2005:

The sighting of a tall, black figure in April on Swains Lane makes me think the vampire is active again.

Concerning Red Eyes

Although the Arcadia post indicates he's unsure as to whether he's referred to the "vampire" (as he is sometimes want to call it) having red eyes, he clearly has, in different levels of intensity:

"The Mysteries of the Highgate Vampire", Great Unsolved Mysteries:

This figure according to Farrant had two red glowing circles where a human‘s eyes would be. Farrant did not conclusively state that what he had seen was a vampire and changed his terminology during different interviews. He would sometimes state that it was a ghost, specter or other unexplainable phenomenon. He did at times speak of it as possibly being amongst the vampires that were wandering the earth.

David Farrant, "Interview with the Real Vampire Hunter":

I'm not sure exactly what it was, except that the surrounding area turned icy cold and I saw a tall dark figure with 'hypnotic red eyes' that seemed to exude an impression of intense evil.

Stay tuned for more thrilling adventures!

In the meantime, you can read a blog entry by Dennis, which shows that Dave can't even keep track of how many times he saw the "vampire".

See, I Told Ya!

It's pretty well-established that our friend Vampirologist aka Demonologist aka Gothic aka TFO, etc. is Dennis Crawford, International Secretary of the Vampire Research Society.

Well, it can't get any more explicit that Vampirologist's profile on the Healthypages forum:

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.

So He's Been Told

In the previous entry, I mentioned:

As to being "told" that I used to be the member of a forum he [Manchester -ed.] administered, he'd be aware of that himself, due to his responses to certain items I posted there. I'll show you in the next blog entry.

Waaay back in 2006, I posted the "Highgate Vampire" entry from Rosemary Ellen Guiley's The Encyclopedia of Vampires, Werewolves, and Other Monsters on my forum.

With her permission, mind you.

The extract was copy-n-pasted onto The Cross and the Stake forum by Dennis and interspersed with his comments. I pointed out that doing so, he was violating her copyright.

Lo and behold, this e-mail (The Cross and The Stake, "Re: The 'Vampires Among Us' Matter", Saturday, 30 September, 2006 12:25 AM) arrived in my inbox:

Told ya.

Of course, that didn't stop Dennis reproducing it on his own forum, also alluding to Jon King's belief that Guiley was a secret agent in a clandestine organisation, whose job it was to "to undermine any serious research into [paranormal] phenomena."

Time to break out the tinfoil hats!

It's also a shame that the Bishop banned me from posting comments on his blog.

You see, the next line of "offensive remarks", were going to ask: "how did you get the money for 3 vehicles and 3 residences in the British Isles?"

Ah wells.

Bishop Allows Derogatory, Hateful Comments on His Blog, but Censors Comments about His Own Deceitful Ways

I guess we now have a postscript to this saga.

After the Bishop posted his blatantly deceptive comment on "Political Affiliation", a whole bunch of worms came out of the woodwork. Take a look at these gems.

Let's start with "Clare":

For the record (like it's at all relevant to the Case), no, I'm not gay. I'm straight.

As to this perceived homosexuality making me "anti-Catholic", I am a Protestant, but certainly not anti-Catholic in the way Clare interprets.

Citing someone for plagiarism (i.e., the Bishop) and asking them to admit to it, is hardly "anti-Catholic". But obviously, the Bishop isn't as decent as that, despite being a "man of the cloth".

Here's how Manchester replied:


No, Bishop, my "homosexual predilection" (which I don't have) isn't responsible for referring to you as a plagiarist who thieves from BNP sources (your definition of "antipathy").

I'll give you a hint as to why I bring it up, though: it relates to your credibility as a witness in this Highgate Affair. And now, as a Bishop, too.

Fail on both counts.

Unsurprisingly, he's banned me from his blog. When the goin' gets tough, the weak get censorious.

The next poster, "Anonymous", was much more, uh, succinct:


It's funny that the Bishop even allowed this comment, as it clearly violates the condition outlaid in his "?" post: ". . . sign off with your real Christian name ~ or your name in full should you prefer ~ rather than post anonymously."

But we can't let that little niggle get in the way of the Bishop's vendetta, can we?

Also, the Bishop reveals that he's a lot more thorough addressing (and supporting) derogatory comments about myself, rather than owning up to his own plagiarism, as shown in his reply (I've split the screencap in two, due to its length):


As to being "told" that I used to be the member of a forum he administered, he'd be aware of that himself, due to his responses to certain items I posted there. I'll show you in the next blog entry.

Also, in saying that he is kept informed of my writings by "One or two people" is pretty risible for two reasons 1) it's pretending that he doesn't read my writings, which he does and 2) even if it was true, that he's merely "informed" of what I write, it shows that he's not open-minded enough to check out allegations himself.

Also, if the Bishop really wasn't interested in what I had to say (even if he grossly distorts it), then why would he go to the trouble of giving me such wonderful coverage on his blog?


The questions he refers to "a little while back", was a sort of informal interview I conducted with him. It probably won't surprise you to know that I found several "anomalies" in his responses (see here and here).

The Bishop's post also brings the total of homosexual references to myself (". . . how he would reconcile his Christian faith with his homosexuality . . .") to three.

Way to drive your point in there, Bish!

He might try and play the victim (". . . I have done nothing to provoke . . .") but the facts speak for themselves. Instead, he's launched a subversive counter-attack against myself, by deploying schoolyard taunts that are the equivalent of "You're gay!" In this case, being used to undermine my evidence against him.

And speaking of stalkers and harassers, the next comment comes from our old chum "Vampirologist" aka "Gothic" aka "Demonologist", that is, his International Secretary for the Vampire Research Society, Dennis Crawford.

Presuming, of course, that this isn't merely a guise used by the Bishop himself:


Ah, plagiarists of a feather stick together (see here and here).

The "veiled threat" Dennis refers to is this statement I wrote, concerning the Bishop's deceptive ways: "No matter, though. If he really is a man of Christ, then he's well-aware of the spiritual consequences of his deceptive actions."

How can "spiritual consequences" be taken as a threat? In regards to the Bishop's alleged Christianity, he'd know I what I was referring to. If it's not clear enough, it's an allusion to what the Bible says about liars.

Interesting that Dennis countered my so-called "threat" by saying "This is a dangerous game to play and one which he can only lose." Ooh, what are you hinting at there, Dennis?

It's also funny that Dennis whinges about me being allowed to comment on the Bishop's blog, when he was the one who complained when I blocked comments coming in from one of his usernames.

Hypocrite, much?

And finally, the Bishop wraps up with this malarkey:


See how he tries to make it sound like he was doing me a favour?

At this point, I have to refrain from using multiple cursewords. Certainly not out of respect to his Title (which I'm really doubting at this point!) or dignity (which he clearly lacks), but so I won't stoop to his level. I know what game he's playing here. It's pretty obvious.

But coming from a "Bishop"? Ugh.

I'll finish this post with a couple of funny items in his comment, which I covered in "Making a Difference".

Firstly, he said, "Frankly, I have neither the time nor the inclination to deal with individuals who crave attention for themselves and patently have an unhealthy obsession with me."

Then why go to the trouble of answering all the comments he allowed on his blog entry?

Second, he also mentioned that "Mr Hogg's offensive remarks, all of which I have naturally edited and removed, were starting to gather momentum. For example, there have been several in the last twenty-four hours."

Going by the timestamps of the comments I've dealt with here, did you notice that they were spaced about an hour apart? That's not even counting the ones he claims to have deleted.

Hilarious!

But, the fact remains. The primary reason why people sought to malign me on his blog entry (which he allowed them to do), was because the Bishop deliberately misrepresented what I wrote to him, and painted me to be something I'm not, i.e., a homosexual stalker.

I think it's safe to say that the subsequent, uh, "feedback" was exactly what the Bishop wanted. Presuming, of course, that he didn't orchestrate the comments, himself.

After the chicanery he's displayed so far, that wouldn't surprise me in the slightest!

Sheer Inanity

You would obviously have noticed that I've been letting my blog languish for a while.

The reason for this is quite simple: the sheer tedium and pettiness evinced from both sides of the Highgate Case can get a bit overwhelming.

So, I took an extended break from it.

That's not to say I've been completely dormant. After all, I've been making regular contributions to my other blog.

At this point, there's not much left to pursue, vampirologically, with this Case. The feuding will continue between these two "gentlemen" and their associates for their duration, from the looks of it.

It's still good to see that JBC is interested in some form of reconciliation (or a damn cease fire) from the two main parties, as indicated in his "Fancy a Pint?" entry.

The proposition held that David and "Demonologist" (Dennis Crawford) were to have a meeting at Highgate's Woodman Pub.

Did this meeting come to pass?

Nooooo, of course not.

Yet again, it was stymied by the usual flimsy excuses.

Dennis expected David to rock up to the pub within a 13 hour duration. When he didn't, he canceled the meet.

From there, it lapsed into an argument about the pub's opening times and Arminius hinted that he wasn't a Christian.

Probably so his continuous attacks wouldn't reveal hypocrisy.

And so, the battle rages on.

Who Turned It Up First?

Dennis ("Demonologist"), in his usual state of superficial pedantry, takes issue with me saying that The Cat's Miaow "turned up" Gerald Isaaman's review of Steve Roud's London Lore: The Legends and Traditions of the World’s Most Vibrant City (2009):

It was "turned up" on the Vampire Research Society's blog long before it did on "Baldry Cat's" excuse of a blog to fuel Farrant's vendetta against Seán Manchester.

He then goes on to quote chunks from an entry (which I had to look up myself, as Dennis was too lazy to provide it) on his Vampire Research Society blog.

There are, however, primary differences between John Baldry Cat's use of the article, and Dennis'.

The most obvious one, for starters, is that Dennis didn't link to the review he quotes chunks from. John Baldry's Cat did.

Dennis also doesn't cite the reviewer's name, merely referring to him as "The person who was editor of the Hampstead & Highgate Express in those far off distant days". John Baldry's Cat actually cites his name, i.e., Gerald Isaaman.

But most tellingly, Dennis omits Isaaman's negative criticisms of the Highgate Vampire Case. John Baldry's Cat, however, prints them in all their glory.

Dennis boils down Isaaman's comments to his description of Manchester's appearance ("Manchester arrived at the office wearing a black cloak lined with scarlet silk and carrying a cane"), to which Dennis adds: "He forgot to mention the top hat and tails that were included with the opera cloak and cane."

Dennis also provides Isaaman's overview of the Highgate Vampire story, but not Isaaman admitting he found it to be "a real hoot, and we played the story for laughs."

So, sure Dennis, quotes from Isaaman's review turned up in your blog prior to John Baldry's Cat's mention. But, at least John Baldry's Cat had the temerity to link and cite the damn thing rather than omit Isaaman's criticisms and his name!

Thus, John Baldry's Cat's coverage of the review was far more substantial and worthwhile than Dennis' own piddling extracts.

Trying to Restore Some Balance

There is a gradual descent into the usual level of accusations and innuendo going on at "Tea for Two".

However, there have been complaints of my keeping track of the unfolding events, a few decent suggestions have come through and the spectre of online-Dennis Crawford-is-Manchester has also been invoked.

Here's my response to these issues:

Lone Stranger,

It might seem dizzying to you, but I have tried to keep the progress of this nice and simple, hence the "he said/she said" statements.

That can be verified just by reading through the comments.

By the way, I'm looking forward to Amber's coverage of the CDFC newsletters on your blog.

JBC,

Your idea about a conference call is...surprisingly good. Of course, the problem is, is in getting these two buggers to pick up the bloody phone!

Gareth,

Firstly, you need your own Google Account. Second, let's scrap the Dennis stuff for now, shall we? It'll only bog things down.

David,

I know you have invited the Bishop to post on your blog and to contact you via e-mail. Of course, this undermines two things: 1) he invited you to post on his blog first, even to the point of barring others from commenting on it 2) you're operating under the presumption that he actually reads this blog (we're not gonna get into the Manchester-is-Dennis thing again).

So, if you want him to pop over to your joint instead, then invite him over privately, rather than through this - or other - blogs. That'll at least be more direct.

Let's try and avoid slipping into back-biting again.

I'm starting to feel like a peacekeeper for the UN.

More Pussyfooting Around

David's set up more stipulations for the proposed tea party social between him and the Bishop, and a dig at the identity of Dennis Crawford:

FOR CAT, OVERSEER, LONE STRANGER, (MAYBE CAROL!), CRAIG, BONKY AKA "DEMONOLOGIST", AND EVERYONE ELSE

let me do this all in one post to save time.

Please understand, good people, I have never said that "Dennis Crawford" does not exist.

A few years ago, a rather immature student (aged around 19 to 20) called in person at my address to say 'Sean and Di sent him'. I asked him why he'd been writing vindictive lies and untruthes about me (on another Blog). He said that he hadn't been told anything about that!

What I am saying - and have said before - is that it is Bonky himself who has been writing all the material about myself which he attributes to Dennis Crawford.

So let that person be present because I would recognise him again.

'Fraid I agree with Craig here: as bonky initially made this invitation/s, he should contact myself on my Blog. His reply will not be censored or edited in any way, but it would have to come from himself directly. THEN any arrangements could be made.

So, over to you, Sean . . .

And this:

Fair enough Cat. It is perhaps obvious to all that he will never post on my Blog.

Then let Bonky email me provately. I have 4 email addresses, but he knows two of them.

So I put it to him here:
FOR BONKY
Re your suggested invation/s for 'tea', I suggest this matter should be discussed in private. Please therefore email me.

In response, I wrote:

Oh, it's something alright!

Your original stipulation, David, was that Dennis be present. Then you wanted him to admit that "Dennis" aka "Vampirologist" aka "Demonologist" was actually him.

Now you want him to contact you via your blog or e-mail.

I think you're deliberately putting up roadblocks, here. I've contacted him on his blog, several times, on your behalf.

He said that it wasn't to be commented on further...apart from you.

That's now two invites he's sent.

Just comment on his blog (make sure you save your comment, though) and let's get this tea party under way.

Hoo boy.

It doesn't surprise me that stumbling blocks are being put into place. After all, we are dealing with a nigh-on forty year feud.

But this kinda stuff just gets petty.

Still, I'm not giving up on them having a go at burying the hatchet that easily!

Ok, Now We're Getting Somewhere

The Bishop has finally responded to the issue of his other usernames. Sort of:

Anthony Hogg has further enquired in a comment:

"In your response to my list of questions in 'From DNA to Demons' you mentioned that you use the occasional pseudonym online. Would you mind being more explicit and say what usernames these are?"

As I made clear, my identity would always be clear even if I employ a title which does not include my name in it. I then gave an example.

However, I do mind being more explicit.

Anthony Hogg then suggested a couple of usernames (deleted because they are irrelevant) [those usernames were "Vampirologist" and/or "Demonologist"-ed.] which do not happen to belong to me, and asked if they are mine.

This is not a game I am prepared to play.

I extended an open invitation earlier this century. Obstacles were put in the way then just as they are being created now. If anyone is serious about wanting to meet me face to face they would do so and not endlessly prevaricate.

I fear the object of the exercise is being circumlocuted, subverted and derailed by pedantry.

Ok, so he totally sidestepped being explicit as to which usernames he uses, but, he at least made it clear that he doesn't use the "Vampirologist"/"Demonologist" moniker.

Carol also amusingly suggests that the Bishop didn't delete the previous comments. She rants:

he may not have deleted them--sometimes it is these user interfaces on different sites; they appear and then they're gone; then they appear again or, he may have deleted them.
You're not in a position to demand or ask or even request ANYTHING FROM ANYONE--read my above message
READ MY ABOVE MESSAGE

As to not being in a position to "ask or even request ANYTHING FROM ANYONE"...well, that's made kind of redundant by the blog's title (Bishop Seán † Manchester: Answers Your Questions) and his blog entry, "?":

Kindly post your question, query or concern on this blog's comments (immediately below) and I shall address it here.

But, back to the tea party.

We're still within the realm of David's terms. Thus, all we really need, is for Dennis, himself, to turn up to the proceedings. As I articulated to David:

Update:

The Bishop said that he doesn't use the usernames, Vampirologist/Demonologist.

However, as per your original stipulation, there's been no discussion of not having Dennis there. This is still on the table.

It's what you wanted, David.

If you still continue to demand he reveal them as his usernames, then I'll say you're using sidestepping tactics yourself.

The stipulation was, that you want Dennis to be there, too (as you think he's not a real person. At least, his online self).

So, as I said, if he does turn up, then you'll have some explaining to do, yourself.

Stumbling Block?

The tea party's getting warmer.

As John Baldry's Cat (JBC) notes in his blog entry, "Tea for Two":

Well, I never imagined I'd be paying a compliment to that insufferable know-it-all, Cousin Hoggy, but here I go. The ambitious young lad from down under has managed to get Bishop Bonkers himself to agree to take tea with arch-rival David Farrant.

I should point out, that the invite was already open. I only sought to clarify things.

But, we've hit a slight snag.

David, despite his previous stipulation (which was agreed to), is now insisting that the Bishop must "confess that he alone is the sole voice behind all these alias's." That is, "Demonologist", "Vampirologist", etc.

Unfortunately, these happen to be aliases of Dennis Crawford, the International Secretary of the Vampire Research Society.

David, however, also believes that "Dennis Crawford" is an alias for the Bishop himself.

Or, as David explains it:

So, as 'Dennis Crawford'is using Bonk's computer day in and day out (sometimes in te early hours) I'd like to see how the 'bonky one' can explain that!?

I've decided to take the initiative, once again, and have posted the following comment on the Bishop's blog:

Dear Bishop,

In your response to my list of questions in "From DNA to Demons", you mentioned that you use the occasional pseudonym online.

Would you mind being more explicit and say what usernames these are?

For example, do you use the usernames "Vampirologist" and/or "Demonologist"?

I await his reply on the matter.

I've also let David know that I posted said comment on the Bishop's blog.

The main point of contention is over whether or not Dennis exists. Now, considering that the Bishop said he'd extend and invite to him, as well, that should clear the matter up, regardless.

One Step Closer

Not long after my previous post, the Bishop responded via his blog entry, "Public Request for Private Meeting".

After taking a dig at my display picture (which he also reproduces in his post, for some reason)...

It seems not inappropriate, as in the northern hemisphere we move into the darkness which accompanies an autumnal equinox, to have someone hidden behind a demonic mask raising this query about a man convicted of crimes...

...which, for the record, is actually a vampire mask, the Bishop concedes that he's willing to meet Farrant. He said that on a previous occasion, David wanted journalists to be present, something Manchester objected to.

He's also agreed to ask Dennis (who uses the pseudonyms "Demonologist" and "Vampirologist" interchangeably) to come along, as per Farrant's request (see here and here):


The Bishop is "reasonably confident" that Dennis Crawford, the International Secretary of Manchester's Vampire Research Society, will agree to accompany them.

Great!

I've posted the news to David, via The Cat's Miaow. I eagerly await his response.

Laying Down the Gauntlet

Could a meeting between Manchester and Farrant become an actual reality? There have been rumblings of a potential meet between the two over at The Cat's Miaow, based on comments made to the "Farrant Rates Women of the World" post. In his September 23, 2009 12:30 AM comment, David writes:

I might consider it if the 'bonky one' would agree to have Dennis, "Demonologist" and "vampirologist" all there at the same time.

Incidentally, "Demonologist" and "Vampirologist" are the same person: Dennis Crawford, International Secretary of the Vampire Research Society.

I've also left a comment (22 September 2009 22:22) on Manchester's blog saying:

Can the hatchet finally be buried? Are they able to maintain some level of decorum and civility?

Let's hope it goes ahead!

More Clues to TFO's Identity

In "Dennisologist?", I related some clues that point to TFO's (aka Gothic aka Vampirologist aka Demonologist) identity.

Well, I've just uncovered some more, courtesy of Bloody Feather (BF), an online "community of dark adult writers."

As we've established, "Vampirologist" is one of TFO's several usernames.

As it happens, it's also the username of someone registered with BF.

A male, from England, who lists 6 VRS-related message boards and 4 links to sites on the VRS webpage as his websites.

He also describes himself as, "International Secretary of the Vampire Research Society". He reasserts his vocation in this blog entry for his BF journal.

The VRS's homepage says that Dennis Crawford fills this role.

TFO also happens to be the founder of the copy-n-paste VRS blog.

Coincidentally enough, Dennis' BF profile status lists him as an "Harasser".

Dennisologist?

Some time ago, I wrote a blog entry which openly queried just who our chum, "Demonologist" aka TFO, might be. I also stumbled across some further clues.

Deme's latest comment-flood, however, gave away something incredibly interesting.

All it took, was this little snippet of text:

Let me make Bishop Seán Manchester's position quite clear. He has no interest in party politics and has at no time in his life been a member of any political party.

What's that? Speaking on the Bishop's behalf with an air of representative authority?

That's a pretty odd call to make, considering that he only claims to be "personally acquainted with Bishop Seán Manchester and have been for some considerable time."

I decided to Google portions of "Demonologist"'s comment-flood with the expectation of finding it regurgitated from elsewhere.

I wasn't let down:

Let me make Bishop Manchester's position quite clear. He has no interest in party politics and has at no time in his life been a member of any political party.

That quote came from a post called "The Devil's Fool", dated 6/23/2007 6:38 AM, on The Cross and the Stake message board.

The most significant item, however, is its author: "From: MSN NicknameDennisCrawford1".

Yep, it's the username of the one-and-the-same International Secretary of the Vampire Research Society.

Funnily enough, remarkably "similar" content to Dennis' post and "Demonologist"'s comments, can also be found on "Arminius Vámbéry"'s "Wicca Workers Party" blog entry for In the Shadow of the Highgate Vampire.

Well, as the old adage goes: with friends like these...

Corrections, Revisions, Omissions! Oh My!

A sincere seeker-of-truth named BIGGLESANDSOPHIE8 posted the following request ("Books about the Highgate Vampire") on the British Occult Society forum:

Does anyone know the exact number of books written about the Highgate Vampire to date?

To which DennisCrawford1 (Dennis Crawford) wrote:

The exact number of books written about the Highgate Vampire to date is really just one.

That is, the 1991 edition of Sean Manchester's The Highgate Vampire.

Crawford goes on to mention

Seán Manchester's significant contribution to Peter Underwood's anthology The Vampire's Bedside Companion and a regurgitation in the third person of Seán Manchester's contribution for a chapter in a later book titled Exorcism!

Yet, strangely, he forgets to raise another work of Manchester's that deals with the same case: the 1985 first edition of The Highgate Vampire.

Why the omission?

Perhaps renowned British horror author, Ramsey Campbell, has the answer.

His anthology, Ramsey Campbell, Probably (PS Publishing, 2002) contains an article called "The Strange Case of Sean Manchester" (pp. 139-150). It was originally written for Shock Xpress in 1991.

In it, he reviews a copy of the 1991 edition against the 1985 original, and notes the following changes. And a warning to readers of this blog - here be spoilers:

• omission of an account in which Manchester first learned of vampires from a nanny who used to bathe him as a child (140)
• omission of a quoted article from a February 1970 issue of the Hamstead and Highgate Express (142)
• omission of images of "Luisa", replaced with that of an "actress" and a portrait (142)
• omission of a bulk of "photographic evidence" (142-143)
• Inclusion of a picture of Rosemary Ellen Guiley, who interviewed him for her 1991 book, Vampires Among Us (143)
• Luisa saying "I must find the old place" instead of "must go to the old house". She also appears to be "significantly less loquacious" (145)
• Mould-covered sandwiches become mould-covered sandwiches...plus maggots (146)
• Conversation with Arthur culled back, words slightly altered (146)
• Attempts by Arthur to use a camera, after the vampire has been staked, change from turning away, to taking "several frames" (146)
• Luisa's sister tells him Luisa died of a "blood disorder" rather than a "form of leukemia" (147)
• Manchester's dreams of Luisa ferociously masturbating herself with a stake are reduced to "swaying to and fro" and "making a hissing sound" (147)
• Omission of Manchester quoting Rudyard Kipling's "If" to himself, after losing local council election, which he ran for, under an assumed name (148)
• Addition of an account by where Manchester is bitten by Luisa, after mistaking her for her sister (148)
• Luisa harasses him in a misty form with two burning eyes (148)
• When changing into robes for an act of necromancy, Manchester feels like "a forlorn lover about to encounter the object of his passion" instead of "a school boy on his way to meet his first real date" (148)

I heartily recommend Campbell's article, which also makes other notations on the Case.

You might also like to read some notations I made on the differences between the editions, ("Changes to the New Edition of The Highgate Vampire" thread) byway of Rosemary Ellen Guiley's Vampires Among Us (New York: Pocket Books, 1991).

A counter-case was made by official reps of the VRS, by which I provided my own responses here.

David's Response to My Queries

After writing my queries to David, I e-mailed him to let him know they were on my blog.

Here's his reply ("Re: From David". Friday, 20 February 2009 4:46:19 AM):

Hi Anthony,

That is all far too much to answer now but I'll get back to your essential points later which you can publish if you want.

The Society was originally formed in 1967 and called the British Occult Society. Manchester became a 'fringe member' in 1969 but was later expelled in 1970 for canvassing for the National Front and using the Society's name in the Press without our permission. The name of the Society was changed to the BPOS in 1983 because Manchester had embarked upon a vendetta against us following his expulsion.

This still continues,

For the moment,

David

I'll send you an interesting link (to the recent French TV thing) later.

He added this further response ("Re: From David. Friday, 20 February 2009 7:55:08 AM):

Following my email, here's something you may be able to have fun with in case you missed it.

It was on French TV on the Canal channel and televised last Sept. Don't know who put it on YouTube

Please let me know what you think. I'd be interested to know,

For now

David


http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=GB&hl=en-GB&v=ezDZBOZZcVQ

The link he supplied me with, is one that I already covered in "Farrant on YouTube". In it, he is billed as an "Ancien gourou Lucifierien" (Former Luciferian guru). Of course, TFO went on to give coverage to the same video, in which he pinched my screencap and Babelfish-powered translation of the caption accorded to David. See: "Qui profane nos tombes?", British Occult Society.

TFO notes that:

Farrant also has no problem during this interview being described as a "Luciferian" and a "Satanist."

Elsewhere. of course, he has denied being a Satanist, or anything vaguely like one, and has also denied ever encountering a vampire.

This is interesting, in light of the information provided on David's own website ("FAQ"):

ARE YOU A SATANIST?

No. And I have always condemned their activities. Many of my articles and writings from the past can confirm this fact.


A HGH PRIEST IN WICCA?

Yes. Well, I used to be. I guess in one respect, I still am. Its rather like a priest in any Church. Just because he (or she) retires does not mean they are no longer an ordained Priest.

But now we have an interesting kettle of fish - namely, that David claims to have been the original founder of the British Occult Society.

Not only that, but that it was actually founded in 1967, rather than the earlier date mentioned by "Vampirologist" ("Genesis of the Vampire Research Society", Vampire Research Society):

The British Occult Society was originally formed as an umbrella organisation circa 1860 [of the Ghost Club Society -ed.]. Much of its activities in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century are shrouded in mystery. It came out of the closet, however, in the mid-twentieth century before finally disappearing in 1988. During that period it was presided over by Seán Manchester who placed emphasis on investigating the claims of the occult and the study and research of paranormal phenomena. Out of this history sprang the Vampire Research Society, founded by the president of the British Occult Society who first appeared on British television on 13 March 1970

Even more disturbingly, David claims that Manchester was a "'fringe' member" until he was booted out for canvassing for the National Front (a right-wing, British racist organisation) and using the BOS's name.

This, of course, completely contradicts Manchester's version ("The 1970 Television Interviews with David Farrant"):

David Farrant was not a member of the British Occult Society which, until its dissolution in August 1988, was strictly an organisation for the examination of alleged occult and paranormal phenomena. It did not countenance occult practices. Its president was an exorcist who, in later years, entered holy orders.

Dennis Crawford, International Secretary of the Vampire Research Society, also elaborates (Message 2, "Vampire Research Society", The Highgate Vampire):

The British Occult Society, prior to its dissolution on 08.08.88, was presided over by Seán Manchester who accepted the leadership on 21 June 1967. The BOS made its television debut on 13 March 1970 when its president featured on Today (Thames Television) to represent the Society’s investigation into reported happenings in and around Highgate Cemetery, London, which had been accumulating since early 1967.

So who's telling the truth?

Either way, I look forward to David providing answers to these and the other questions I posed him in previous entries.

Is Dennis Crawford Actually The (Fake) Overseer in Disguise?

The latest post on TFO's new blog, Vampire Research Society, would seem to indicate as much.

In strangely referring to itself as an "Advisory Service on Vampires and Vampirism", it fails to mention that its (so far only) post cribs a sizable chunk of Dennis Crawford's ("DennisCrawford1") message 1 on "The British Occult Society & The Ghost Club Society" thread from the British Occult Society MSN Group.

Has a mere Sean Manchester sympathiser (which TFO bills himself to be) set himself as a representative of the VRS? It should be noted that Dennis Crawford is the organisation's International Secretary. (See: Vampire Research Society homepage).

That's not the only thing the homepage reveals.

For some unknown reason, the VRS has decided to incorporate TFO's plagiaristic blog, Journal of a Vampirologist, into its menu. So, obviously TFO must be "speaking" with some air of authority on the VRS's behalf.

The plot thickens when we take into account Dennis' Oct 1, '06 criticism of my use of the username, "The Overseer", in association with my MSN Group:

I nevertheless refer you to the first nine words of St Paul's First letter to Timothy (3: 2-7) which describes qualities required of an Overseer: "An overseer, then, or bishop, must be above reproach ..." The Revised English Bible uses the word "bishop" whereas the New American Standard Bible employs "overseer." An overseer in ecclesial terms is a bishop.

Yet, strangely, Dennis took a completely different, much more tolerant view of TFO ripping-off my own username, for his own purposes:

The manager of Did A Vampire Walk In Highgate? took to employing the pseudonym The Overseer in protest against Hogg's misuse of the title.

"Misuse"?

I fail to see how ripping-off my username "in protest", then using it to repetitively plagiarise VRS and other sources, warrants such acts of social justice. I'd hardly call that action "above reproach".

If TFO is indeed Dennis Crawford, then he's got a lot to answer for.

For one thing, it is fairly indicting of the International Secretary of the VRS, when he engages in the game of publicly revealing personal information (i.e., my real name) of people who use the VRS website, all the while hiding behind a username - one adopted from myself, no less - to carry out a vendetta against myself. This is one in a catalogue of shady tactics.

I'd call for his resignation.

But does Dennis Crawford even speak on his own behalf?

Craig Adams, a former member of Don Ecker's Dark Matters forum, alleged that the following usernames all emanated from Sean Manchester's IP:

+Seán (Superior General)
+Seán Manchester
Albé
Bishop's Chaplain
Bishop's PR Secretary
Bishop Seán Manchester
Chairman
Crusader
Crusader Knight
DennisCrawford1
FoBSM Administration
KatrinaGarforth-Bles1
Old Catholic Church
Sangreal
The Apostle
The Author
The Informative One
The Overseer

The last belongs to TFO aka "Gothic" aka "Vampirologist".

Interestingly, it wouldn't be the first time such pseudonyms have been used.