Death Threats and Stalking and Vampiroids—Oh My!

Sylvia Raven Nagel aka Sylvia Maria Capringo aka Lady S. Raven Nagel, a self-identified witch and vampire who has stalked me for several years, made multiple death threats against me and even posted pictures of what she thought was my house—in the hope that I be bashed or murdered. Patrick Sean Manchester has shared the same photos on various blogs and Facebook groups. Seen here after a 1998 arrest. Picture: The Forrest Gump of Witchcraft.

On the DAWWIH Facebook group, I recently discussed a member of Angie May Watkins' group, Sylvia Raven Nagel, making death threats against me. Instead of evicting Nagel from her group, Watkins evicted me instead.

Nagel, who identifies as a vampire, has obviously seen my post mentioning her and responded with this:

Hello little troll!! I made tons of death threats. I’m still waiting for you, Tania Liddle and others to bring International charges against me, over comments made about you!! You really think that the authority of law gives two shits about you or me? Apparently so, if after all these years you just HAD to throw that line in. 😂😂😂 and it seems that your still running in fear. I can’t tag you to this post, it’s a public post, can’t get you connected at all. Those settings are on your end dumbass Troll!! Wait until I go unto the cloud I have more pictures to take a trip down memory lane with you. 😂😂😂 No worries someone will gladly let you know this is here. An you won’t have to search for pictures. I will tag the ones Kate [Gallwey] sent to me all those years ago. I believe Lady CG got a hold of them some how and they were eventually given to me, because I fear nothing or no one. Damn right I will post it. An now again!! Wimpy Vampirologist!! 😂😂😂 just put a plastic bag over your head and breathe deeply. That will help solve the dumb ass you are. LOL

Nagel accompanied this post with a series of overhead shots of someone's house. I'm not sure whose house it is, but it's not mine.

For added clarity, Nagel's post refers to two other self-identified vampires: Kate Gallwey (Being a Psychic Vampire, self-pub., CreateSpace, 2015) and Barbara Kammerer aka "Lady CG" (Practical Vampyrism for Modern Vampyres, self-pub., Lulu, 2005).

In 2016, both colluded to stalk me and share my personal information online so that I may befall physical harm or death from irate self-identified vampires—because I have expressed skepticism at their claim to be vampires. Indeed, Gallwey claimed to be be acting under the auspices of a shadowy organisation called Voices of the Vampire Community (VVC) (http://www.veritasvosliberabit.com/vvc.html).

Although Gallwey's claim was denied by the website's administrator, Merticus, Gallwey's membership was unaffected.

Interestingly, Patrick Sean Manchester, has shared the same photos, via Nagel, on his Facebook groups and blogs. This, despite his own pronouncements on self-identified vampires like Nagel:

Some [vampiroids] actually believe themselves to be vampires, but, of course, they are not. How could they be when the definition of a vampire, upon examination, is revealed to be a dead body that issues forth from its tomb in the night to quaff the warm blood of the living, whereby it is nourished and preserved? Vampiroids, therefore, cannot be re-animated corpses with an awful supernatural existence beyond the grave. People who either believe themselves to be vampires, or want to become vampires and affect what they construe to be vampiristic lifestyles, even when this is taken to extremes, are invariably vampiroids.
.
But it is not even as simple as that because there are various categories of vampiroid, ranging from harmless poseurs to dangerous psychopaths. The former may be benign, but the latter are capable of murder. Thus the vampiroid is not a supernatural being, but a human who embraces what he or she assumes to be a lifestyle commensurate with vampirism as largely depicted in fictional films and literature. Whereas the true vampire partakes of the dark natures and possesses the terrible qualities of both apparition and demon, assuming the form of a dead body to suck the blood of the living.

So, what is Manchester, a self-professed "vampire hunter," and alleged bishop, doing playing along with a "vampiroid" (his words) and one who clearly fits Manchester's "dangerous psychopath" category? Sounds like collusion to me.

Now, when these photos were shared several years ago via the method Nagel described, I did pretend they were mine—to throw Manchester, and the other stalkers involved, off the scent. After all, would you want them knowing where you live?

But, clearly, that was a mistake on my part and I shouldn't have done it. Which is why I told them, multiple times, it wasn't my residence.

That hasn't stopped them from sharing these images, though.

Notes

Instead of evicting Nagel from her group, Watkins evicted me instead: Anthony Hogg, "My former friend . . .," Facebook, May 30, 2020, https://www.facebook.com/groups/awampyrwalks/permalink/10163819392550494. Watkins' group is HIGHGATE! HIGHGATE! HIGHGATE!. I am uncertain if it's still active.

"Hello little troll!": Nagel, "Hello little troll!!," Facebook, May 30, 2020, https://www.facebook.com/sravennagel/posts/3537745086239121.

Although Gallwey's claim was denied by the website's administrator: See Anthony Hogg, "How the VVC Handled a Complaint About Members Cyberstalking Me," Facebook, February 9, 2020, https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=oa.2735341733219344&type=3.

Patrick Sean Manchester, has shared the same photos, via Nagel, on his Facebook groups and blogs: An example can be found in Manchester [FoBSM, pseud.], "Hogg's Trolling Days Are Numbered," Portals to the Truth (blog), October 31, 2016, https://fobsm.blogspot.com/2016/10/hoggs-trolling-days-are-numbered.html.

Some [vampiroids] actually believe themselves to be vampires: Patrick Sean Manchester [Vampirologist, pseud.], "Vampiroidism aka False Vampirism," Vampire Research Society (blog), February 21, 2009, http://vampireresearchsociety.blogspot.com/2009/02/vampiroidism-aka-false-vampirism.html.

Files

Anthony Hogg, "Sylvia Raven Nagel Admits to Death Threats Against Anthony Hogg, Facebook, May 30, 2020, https://www.facebook.com/download/preview/1605658612923044 (PDF).

Suspended from Posting to Facebook for Three Days

I've just received an announcement from Facebook telling me I'm barred from posting for three days, due to an intellectual property claim issued against me.

A few days ago, I initiated a thread in my Facebook group discussing the recent death of Sylvia Browne, comparing my plight with the one Robert S. Lancaster faced running his Stop Sylvia Browne website:

Not directly related to the Highgate Vampire, but Robert Lancaster is a man I admire and whose delvings into the claims of a paranormalist touches on things I've encountered, myself while writing about the case - the threats to dig up dirt, actual attempts, attempts at discrediting my work through negative rhetoric (Lancaster's website is called "nasty", whereas I am referred to as a "troll" and someone who doesn't ask "genuine questions", etc.) and so on. It's guys like him that inspire me.

And in case you think I'm being tasteless by posting this in the immediate aftermath of Browne's death, it also serves to highlight why we shouldn't glorify the dead who were dodgy in life. Case in point: "And she said, as she says in some of her books, that she will live until she is eighty-eight years old, which is sixteen years from now [2008]." Browne was 77.

Right beneath that post, I posted a link to Hoggwatch, a blog dedicated to stalking me, to illustrate the kind of despicable tactics used to attack me and my research. The blog's byline was formerly credited to "Vebjørn Hästehufvud", who changed his account name to "B .O.S." in the immediate aftermath of my exposé of his dodgy behaviour (which includes using a variety of sockpuppets and stealing the Highgate Cemetery Vampire Appreciation Society's name).

Overlooking the irony of his action, the true author of the blog opted to report me for posting a link to Hoggwatch—not content from the link, mind you, just the link itself—and in doing so, revealed the actual person behind the sockpuppets:

That's right—Bishop Sean Manchester reported me to Facebook for posting a link to a blog he created, dedicated to stalking me. Ladies and gentlemen, I present the man whose jurisdiction English Old Catholics have placed themselves under. At least, in his own imagination.

I have also taken the liberty of e-mailing Manchester, in accordance with Facebook's request:

Dear Manchester,

Re: you reporting me to Facebook on account of me posting a link to your blog

I am writing in to ask you to restore the content to my Facebook group, i.e. a link to your blog, "Hoggwatch" accompanied by the caption "An example of an attempt at silencing my work". Facebook requests that you email them with your consent, along with the reference number.

I can not fathom why you would report my post for hosting the link, unless you desired to incriminate yourself as its author—in which case, you've succeeded. Well done.

Regards,

Anthony Hogg

I've done my part. Time for Manchester to do his. I look forward to his reply.

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.

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":

Stalker Source

Just to show that "The Great Reveal" post was no mere hit-and-run affair, I've also posted it on David's blog. I've also followed it up with a query regarding the source of his stalker info.

It would've taken up too much space to reply to David's comment on his blog, so I took a shortcut approach. Here's what I wrote back:

Hi David,

Here’s my response to your dodgy reply.

By the way, could you forward the e-mail in which George revealed “my” address to you? Just want to establish the truth of your allegation.

Is it enough to just accept David's word on the matter? After all, the claim's on his head. Still, it'd be nice to get actual proof of his claim. The ball's in David's court, now. Let's see if he can back up what he said.

The Great Reveal

David's finally come clean about the identity of person who forwarded my home address to him. Unfortunately, he also resorts to his usual rhetoric and deceptive tactics.

His response to my previous query evinces more of the same-old, same-old nonsense. Once again, issues I didn't raise are hoisted up from the depths of his own imagination. I'll be dissecting his comment with interspersions of my own:

Anthony, give it a rest.

If I don’t choose to discuss the contents of the book here, that remains my privilege – not yours.
I have already told you, this Blog serves as a diary of events, and I do not use it to advertise my books.

That might be believable, if five of his comments on the thread didn't incorporate subtle, ahem, suggestions ("So I suggest you first order that from Amazon or Nielsens (or any good bookshop)", "you’ll just have to order it from Amazon", "go out and order the 'Pact' one" and "you’ll just have to go out and order the book", "let him go out and order one") to buy the book.

But as I am well known for my books (mostly on the paranormal) and writing books forms a large part of my life, I am quite entitled to mention titles here as or when I may be working on them. But I do not advertise them here (although I would be quite entitled to do that as well if chose to).

Which he obviously has been. On several occasions.

I have already invited you to go right back 3 years ago (this month) and show us where I have given any price details, and any address for any payments to be sent. You would have been unable to do so – simply because there are none. So you really destroy your own argument.

David's obviously unfamiliar with the concept of advertising (or is he?). It's not always as obvious as telling price details. Wikipedia defines advertising as "a form of communication intended to persuade an audience (viewers, readers or listeners) to purchase or take some action upon products, ideals, or services." Thus, telling someone to repeatedly buy a book would kinda fit that mould, don't you think.

I have made it quite clear, that, as an on-going Diary of current events, I do not wish to discuss 40 year-old feuds or arguments here. You are the one who seems obsessed with doing this.

A pretty odd claim, considering that I wasn't raising "40 year-old feuds" on his thread. Keep in mind that I was asking him for info on his latest publication. Even odder, when he alludes to the book's contents: "Enough nonsense has already been spread around about the whole subject of ‘vampires’, witchcraft and the occult, and my only intention (in writing the book) was to enable people to judge the facts for themselves."

I have already had to remove you from my two Facebook groups, Friends of David Farrant and The Highgate Vampire Society for doing exactly the same sort of thing. I also removed you as a Friend on Facebook for trying to introduce the ‘feud issue’ there – and this was not without ample requests and warnings.

The "same sort of thing", of course, being "40 year-old feuds". As I've established, that's a load of baloney. What I was actually raising on his Facebook groups, were glaring contradictions in his contemporary accounts, compared to the revised versions he presents to do. Oh, and noting that for a guy who doesn't like public discussions on the Highgate Vampire, he sure can't stop talking about it to the media. You can read about my Facebook contributions here, here and here.

I am also telling you for the last time here . . . now. I will not allow any further of your personal posts which are attempting to introduce the ‘feud’ issue or people who were – or still are – involved in that. So don’t waste your time writing them, as they simply will not be published.

Yes, as we can see, Captain Free Speech is waving around the banhammer again. Funny thing is, he probably would have been better off not publishing my comments at all. I mean, telling people that my comments will be refused for such reasons, even though they can read the bloody thread themselves is either a massive oversight or shows how little respect he actually has for his readers' basic level of comprehension.

As to this:

“And don’t forget that you threw that stalker curveball into the mix, too. As if publicly mentioning that you had my home address (yet refusing to divulge who gave it to you) was somehow relevant to asking what your book’s about. As usual, you’re the pot calling the kettle black”.

I am not calling you anything; I have only been trying to answer spurious allegations being ‘thrown in’ by yourself.
I told you, that just because I have your address, does not mean I have been ‘stalking you’.

Let me give you this scenario, dear readers: you're commenting away on a blog, just trying to ask about its author's new book. He dodges basic questions about its content and all of a sudden, he throws a curveball at you. Like this: "And ‘no’, you are not getting a free copy even though I have your address now!" Apart from "WTF?!", what'd be your first reaction? Yeah, I thought so.

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.

Nobody's interested? Funny, that's not what my Feedjit says. Also, I haven't noticed his readers (at least, on his blog), say anything of the sort. 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.

It was yourself you brought the ‘stalking element’ into all this when you publicly admitted on Arcadia that somebody calling themselves “George” had sent your private details together with a photograph of yourself in PM’s there.

Now we're warming up to the big reveal. Just to keep you up to scratch, I was being stalked on Arcadia by a member known simply as..."George". He sent a personal address and photo to me in my inbox there. I duly reported him to the mods, who took swift action against him. However, you'll soon see the lighter side of this episode.

But what disturbs me most about Dave's reply is the you-brought-this-on-yourself mentality. No condemnation of the actual stalker, himself. No, it's all my fault. Thus, Dave once again condones Internet stalking by this principle. I deserved it, apparently. Yeah, what does that sound like?

YOU were the person who chose to make this public.
But I would agree, that really does constitute stalking.
Yet it was not myself who did this, and I believe I told you whom I was sure that this was. That is really your problem, but please stop trying to confuse this issue with your references to myself and ‘stalking’ here.

If he's referring to him telling me who stalked me on Arcadia, sure, maybe he dropped a few allusions. But we need names people! Not innuendo! And besides, what does that have to do with Dave having my address and then publicly announcing that he had it? The onus shifts a lil there, methinks.

This same person also gave you my address Anthony, so it doesn’t take too much intelligence to work out who it was.
Now, for the last time . . . BEHAVE YOURSELF!

David Farranr

And there's the great reveal: George. That prick. There's two funny things here, which I should mention. Firstly, it's blatantly obvious that George was a VRS lackey. It just shows how desperate they've gotten to discredit me, and intimidate me away me from my writings, that they've now resorted to sharing my personal info with their archnemesis. How pathetic.

Or is it my info? That personal address and photo I mentioned George sending me? Yeah, I feel sorry for whoever the actual guy is. Cos, guess what? It's not me. They obviously thought it was, though. That means the VRS has been distributing the details of some random dude to, well, who knows who else. Anyone who'll listen to their crap, I guess. Worst. Stalkers. Ever.

It was good to get 'em suspended off Arcadia. There's no excuse for that kind of behaviour. I mean, honestly. Tracking down randoms? They're that insecure with what I write that they gotta try and hunt me down? Maybe if they were a little less dodgy, I'd have a whole lot less material for my blog. How's that for a new strategy?

Sidetrackin' Dave

The first cycle of the stalker saga concluded recently. This time 'round, David brings it full circle by referring back to my initial enquiries. That is, the ones that bizarrely lead me to getting stalked by his anonymous informant.

Once again, Dave's usual sidetracking methods are on display. His response concerns issues I raised here, which also reveal the true audacity of his hucksterism. Oh, and I meant to say "That's", not "Thanks". Whoops. Anyway, here's my response:

The Stalker Saga, Vol. 1

At this point, it's fairly obvious that Dave's not gonna come clean with the identity of the person who handed him my home address. So, I've decided to let the matter drop. For now.

But, if any further details come to light, I'll let you know. In the meantime, I've gathered the relevant entries into this handy, bite-sized blog entry for your reading pleasure.

1. Stalker Dave
2. David Attributes Stalking Ability to the Supernatural
3. The Plot Thickens
4. The Cult of Dave?
5. The Lighter Side of Being Stalked
6. The Long and Winding Road
7. Cat's Outta the Bag

Cat's Outta the Bag

David continues his shameless deception and hucksterism. Also, the recent stalking escapades he's condoned, have inspired a new blurb for this blog.

Yes, the great proponent of free speech has been (unsurprisingly) selective in publishing my comments on his blog. My response to one of his latest deceptive tirades is still "awaiting moderation."


Meanwhile, he's allowed comments by regular commentator, "John Baldry's Cat" (JBC) concerning purchasing his latest book. Yes, despite saying "I do not use this Blog to advertise my books". Whatevs! As a result, JBC was left without context for what I actually wrote, instead relying on David's rhetoric.


I followed it up with a comment that David actually allowed, amazingly enough (maybe because of the coverage I've been giving the matter on my blog?), in which I set JBC straight. Yet, he still managed to censor it.


The missing name? Manchester. David frequently alludes to him, but clearly doesn't like using his actual name. So much for "naming names" and backing up his claims. Funnily enough, the Manchester crew likes hiding David's name on occasion, too. Note the reference to "The Devil's Fool" in this thread on The Cross and the Stake message board is actually Farrant. Yet another similarity of the opposing sides.

Now, back to the comments. Next up, Dave tries to dissuade JBC ordering a copy of the book on my behalf, encouraging me to buy my own copy. Yes, yet another sales pitch. He also discusses my lack of awareness of the book's contents:


There's a pretty obvious reason why I don't know what's in the book. It'll become readily apparent. But first up, JBC's response:


Well, I'm gonna take his word on that one. He might be pesky, but I don't think he's that nutty. So it was a longshot. But it still leaves open the mystery of who my stalker was. Notice how conveniently that was brushed aside by Dave? Typical. Anyway, now it's time to reveal why my knowledge of the book is somewhat limited. Strap yourselves in, folks!


Yes, amazingly enough, in all the time Dave's been sales-pitching, he's refused to discuss what the damn thing's about! Do you buy books online without knowing anything about their contents? As I've pointed out before, the damn thing doesn't even have a product description on Amazon. Do authors usually spend this much time dodging questions concerning basic information covered in their book? Worst. Salesman. Ever.

*****************************

Lastly, I come to this blog's new blurb. In light of all the stalkyness that's been going on, I've been concerned that my readers might find themselves exposed to it, considering the nuttiness of the stalker in question. So, I've composed a new blurb for this blog, which'll hopefully give readers (the sane ones) a heads-up on what they might be getting into:


Felt like I needed something a bit more direct than my "Public Service Announcement". If you're a newbie, or never really paid attention, and you wanna see what the old blurb said, then you'll find it here.

The Long and Winding Road

Dave's latest response on the stalker saga invokes vampires, Manchester and censorious activity, despite previous claims that he encourages free speech. Despite this potpourri, he still manages to sidestep the major issues at hand.

Sometimes, discussing things with David is like walking down a long and winding road that inevitably leads back to the place. This time, it began with me trying to get some very basic information on his latest book. It's lead to one of his "sympathisers" stalking me, handing over my personal details to him. He's also started deploying his usual vampire rhetoric and digs at his nemesis, Sean Manchester. What makes this instance particularly bizarre, is that I hadn't even been discussing them in the thread. Anyway, here's his response:

FOR ANTHONY HOGG,

I have not allowed your post, Anthony, simply because it is merely a duplicate one of what you have posted on your Blog. I do not want your silly arguments about the Highgate ‘vampire’ case to be carried on here. Stay on your own Blog and do it, if you really feel the obsessive need. I would remind you that this is precisely why you gat a life ban from Arcadia recently i.e. posting up Private Messages from their Board without permission to do so.
All this stuff about people ‘stalking’ you just because someone told me your private address, is just childish and proves, if anything, you are just paranoid. I do not know if anybody has ‘stalked you’ in the past. But I can tell you that I certainly haven’t (as can be evidenced by the fact I always signing my own name when having to answer your childish allegations), and the person who gave me your address certainly has not.

If you attack persistently attack public figures, Anthony, with your distorted notions about ‘ghosts’ and ‘vampires’, it is inevitable that you are putting yourself in the public arena with such allegations, so you should hardly be surprised at that!

In any event, I am not going to allow you to pursue your nonsense on here. I have told you time and time again that I simply do not accept the existence of ‘blood-sucking vampires’. You cannot seem to accept this, and keep trying to persuade people that I do. There is another person who admits publicly, that he does believe in vampires and ‘giant vampire spiders’. It must be noticeable to people, that you always choose to remain deadly silent (excuse the pun!) about this issue.
When I asked you on Arcadia for your definition of ‘ghosts’ and ‘vampires’, your reply was that you believed ‘ghosts’ were really the manifestation of demons sent by the devil to fool the people into believing they were really the spirits of departed loved ones that were trying to deceive the living!

Well, everybody to their own beliefs, Anthony! But that does not change the fact that I do not believe in literal ‘vampires’, and never will!

You can believe what you want about myself, Anthony, and I really don’t care. But please don’t expect me to allow you to discuss all this nonsense here.

Have a G’day sport!

David Farrant

The thing that concerns me most about his reply, apart from the glaring contradictions, distortions and fabrications, is his refusal to condemn the actions of his stalker pal. In not doing so, he's essentially justified stalking as a perfectly reasonable action in public discussions on the Highgate Vampire Case. Even by people who don't openly engage in discussions on it in the first place. Here's what I wrote back:

Hi David,

Thanks for firstly admitting that 1) you read my blog and 2) proving my point about your mis-representative ways. It’s fortunate that I posted my actual response on my blog, so people could see what you’re trying to cover up.

Your references to “silly” discussions about the Highgate Vampire is incredibly vague. You also say you don’t want discussions of the Highgate Vampire carried over here, but as I’ve pointed out multiple times, you discuss it here as well. Including mentioning upcoming TV interviews, publicising the promotion of your book, etc.

I was banned from Arcadia because I published the correspondence of the forum’s owner on my blog. The initial ruling was a 6 week suspension if I took the correspondence down. I refused to do so, as I felt the public needed to know about the double standards taking place over there. Clarmonde has also noticed their censorious nature and has complained about it, here on your blog.

I don’t think it’s childish to discuss stalking in collusion with you having my home address. You chose to mention that you had it. Publicly. But I never gave it to you. Nor have I given it to anyone you know and I certainly haven’t posted it online. I’m not sure what kind of alternative universe you live in, but that, my friend, constitutes as stalking.

But it’s ok in that regard, Dave. Cos I now have your address. Rest assured, I’ll keep it quiet as a gesture of good faith. So, if my address gets distributed/misused by you or your anonymous crony, then I’ll know the source and will duly notify the relevant authorities.

As to attacking “public figures” with “distorted notions about ‘ghosts’ and ‘vampires’”, that’s quite frankly ludicrous. Anyone can see that my so-called “distortions” are straight from the horse’s mouth, thanks to the linking and citing I do on my blog. Try not to rely on scattershot criticisms like that, especially when people can read your own stuff online for themselves.

I haven’t mentioned vampires on this thread. So, trying to trick people into thinking that I’m accusing you of believing in them is quite ludicrous. All they have to do is scroll through this thread and see for themselves.

The “other person” you’re referring to is Sean Manchester, who openly believes in vampires (or, at least, perpetuates the idea that he does). Obviously, you’re trying to lump my writings in with your vendetta against him. Again, such jingoism won’t work when they can simply read the rest of the thread here and see that it’s you bringing up vampires and Manchester. Not me.

Yes, you asked for my definition of ghosts and whether or not I believed in vampires. Regarding ghosts, I answered from a primarily Protestant/Scriptural viewpoint. As to vampires, I said I didn’t believe in them. So what’s your point? Are you saying your Wiccan view of spirits is more authoritative that my Protestant one?

Anyway, I know the semantics you use. That’s why you keep emphasising “literal” or “bloodsucking” vampires. That is, ones derived from folklore, literature and movies. It’s to mask the fact that you believe in “vampire-like” (yes, you’ve used that term) psychic entities that suck out people’s psychic energy. You should tell more people about that angle instead of continuously attacking Manchester’s vampire beliefs.

Lastly, suppressing my comments on here (and wildly distorting what I have said) proves you aren’t the man of “free speech” you pretend to be.

Here's some CliffsNotes for certain things mentioned in my reply. Firstly, you can read about my Arcadia ban is covered here. Clarmonde is a member of that forum, who also switched me onto another one.

And yes, I now have David's address. Did a little digging for it while this stalker saga's been taking place. Let's call it "insurance". I even know that it's a 5 minute drive, or a 27 minute walk, from his place to his cash cow, Highgate Cemetery. Didn't realise he lives that close to it. Quite convenient.

The other "person" he mentions who believes in vampires and that "giant spider" thing? As I said, a clear dig at his mortal enemy, Sean Manchester. I've even read about the giant spider's possible source.

How about his sly dig at my personal, religious views on ghosts? That has its origins in a discussion on Arcadia. Funny thing is, his vampire rhetoric made appearances there, too, as well as his wild distortions/interpretations of what I write, byway of response.

Lastly, I touched on the semantics David uses when discussing vampires. Or, specifically, the bloodsucking kind. He does so for three main reasons: 1) to represent himself as more "rational" than his opponent, 2) to continue making digs at his opponent, hence the conjunctive references to "giant spiders" and 3) to take focus off the fact that he, too, believes in vampires. Just not in the same kind Manchester does.

See, despite the common bloodsucking corpse interpretation of the term, it can actually be applied to different vampire "types". That's why I had to be extra careful in the wording of possible responses to a poll I recently initiated. It's also why David tends to be specific in dismissing the traditional bloodsucking variety. Don't believe me? Here's a snippet from an interview he conducted with Bite Me magazine:

... it is true that I do not believe in vampires in their commercialised sense i.e. the sort of vampire that has stepped straight out of a Hammer film, sleeps in its coffin by day and goes around sucking people's blood by night and which can only be destroyed by being 'staked through the heart'. I have frequently said in the past that this sort of vampire is pure fiction. But this does not mean, however, there there do not exist psychic entities that take on vampire-like characteristics in that they remain 'earthbound' and posses the capability to attack unsuspecting victims, psychically leading some people to believe they have become 'possessed'.

In case there's any possible further doubt that I'm taking him out of context, you'll notice that the interview's hosted on his own website.

The Lighter Side of Being Stalked

Even though I established that Dave isn't a cult leader, he's still keen to bang on about the flimsy association on his blog. The rationale behind his defence is quite a joke, as you'll soon see.

It's fortunate that I can see the funny side of being stalked. Especially when the comedy's inadvertently coming from Dave, courtesy of his limp-wristed blog responses. One of them even exploited his Wiccan background to cover the tracks of his stalker pal.

But, I haven't been praised for my "articulate, concise and relentless" approach to Highgate-related dealings for nothing, so I wasn't gonna let that one rest. Here's what I wrote back to Dave:

Re: cult leader stuff. Sure, others might have been saying such things about you on JREF, but I didn’t. So what’s your point?

Why raise their insinuations against my responses to you here? Why not just admit you didn’t know the definition of “sympathiser”, without resorting to such gobbledygook?

Speaking of which, let’s not forget that this mysterious “sympathiser”/friend of yours resorted to hacking (?) personal details about myself and forwarding them onto you for an undisclosed purpose. Do you find their actions justifiable?

Yes, I was posting stuff on the JREF forum in relation to yourself, vampires and unexplained phenomena. And? You forgot to mention that I was also quoting what you wrote about and what you’ve been recorded as saying on such matters? So, again, what’s your point?

You neglected to mention that you also wound up using the same forum (in collusion with “Cecil Lamont-Dwiggins”, another forum member) to a advertise a comic (published through BPOS) ridiculing myself and Sean Manchester, among others. Yet another feud-based revenue-raiser. I’m seeing the same pattern here.

Why do I ask questions about “Pact”? Because it seems to concern the Highgate Vampire Case. You know, the thing I write a blog about. Also remember that there’s precious little info on the book. Not even an Amazon description.

As to who it concerns, on that matter, I can only speculate. And I’d prefer not to do that. So, I’m simply obtaining such info straight from the horse’s mouth. Yes, you, its author.

I find it ludicrous that you’re promoting the book as a factual account, that you can back up what you say, etc. etc. yet you’re obviously too scared to even discuss who it largely concerns…on your own blog. And you accuse me of “silly innuendos”. What a laugh.

Whatever’s in the print account, you should be able to relate on here. What’s the problem? Asking questions about the book isn’t being “naughty” as you patronisingly infer.

Lastly, you say in the blog post that you “do not use this Blog to advertise my books”, yet you’ve thrown a sales pitch at me no less than four times in this comment section, alone.

And talk about audacity. It’s the same thread you’ve used to admit that you have my home address (which I didn’t give to you or anyone you know) and that you’re harbouring a stalker, as you refuse to disclose who forwarded my details onto you in the first place. Now you want me to buy your booklet? Gimme a break! Hahaha!

Like I said, it's good to see the funny side of such nonsense. That doesn't mean such actions should be tolerated, though. After all, how's it conductive to open discussions on the Highgate Vampire Case, when sympathisers resort to stalking the "enemies" of their friends? Such actions should be openly condemned by the main parties, not brushed off with weak excuses.

The Cult of Dave?

Dave jumps the gun during discussions of the stalker saga, inadvertently drawing on cultish parallels I hadn't previously established. Did he make a Freudian slip?

We've established that Dave keeps some decidedly shady company. Someone willing to source out my personal info and hand it over to him, even if their true motivation (and identity) remains a mystery.

Dave thinks they might've done it because I've "upset many people on the Internet" with "silly innuendos" and discussed his association with vampires. In other words, he suggests they've taken what I've said about him quite personally and gotten so worked up, they've resorted to such drastic measures without even talking to me first. Yeah, that makes sense.

Funny thing is, it's not the first time I've been the victim of such actions when it comes to discussing the Highgate Vampire Case online. Y'know, the distribution of personal info on behalf of a major participant I've somehow offended. But I'll get into that shortly. In the meantime, here's David's further response on the stalker issue. It also contains a rather strange insinuation I didn't attribute to him or his stalker buddy:


I was quite taken aback (and amused) by Dave's cult talk. Especially as I made no such inference. Obviously, he's not familiar with the meaning of "sympathiser". I addressed this in my reply and confronted him about his middling defense of the mystery stalker's actions. Oh, and did you see that sales pitch he slipped in? The guy really has no shame:


The "cult leader" thing's pretty funny when you consider that Dave's a former Wiccan High Priest, as his website's FAQ reveals. Another source claims he achieved a Third Degree rank.

That, in itself, isn't worthy of a parallel, but some things start adding up. For instance, it's pretty clear he doesn't like his word being questioned. He frequently sidesteps discussions with any modicum of depth concerning his own claims. But, hey, buy the books and you'll learn the "truth".

There's also the close-knit circle of "friends" on his blog. Ones that often echo what he writes about, heaping sly invective on his nemesis. His own devil, if you will.

And now we see the emergence of an anonymous "loyalist" rushing to defend his "honour" by digging up personal info on me and forwarding it along to him. Gee, I wonder what that reminds me of.

But the most amusing parallel of all, is something I was touching on earlier concerning my public forays into the Highgate Vampire Case and the unauthorised distribution of my personal info. Yeah, take a wild guess at who does the same kinda thing. Talk about strange bedfellows.

The Plot Thickens

He publicly announced that he had my home address; even though I didn't give it to him, or anyone he knows. He tried claiming that he found it through supernatural means. But it turns out (surprise, surprise), that there was a far more mundane source.

The ongoing stalker saga continues through David's blog. In the latest installment, Dave finally alludes to his actual source of personal info about myself. And once again, it's accompanied by a shameless sales pitch:


Is it just me, or is there some very faulty logic being applied in that response? Also, what "silly innuendos" and "vampire" stuff? As usual, Dave's rather oblique on the matter. Anyway, here's my response:


It's truly weird, though. I mean, why would they get so fired up about the stuff that I write concerning Dave, that they'd resort to tracking down my personal info and forwarding it along to him? What were they hoping to achieve? Can Dave truly be trusted with such info? And what about the anonymous nutter who tracked the info down in the first place? They're still under Dave's wing.

See, I wasn't kidding when I wrote that "Public Service Announcement" a while ago. Good to see it bearing fruit.

David Attributes Stalking Ability to the Supernatural

Once again, Dave tries to give the runaround. When I confronted him about being a stalker, asking him where he'd gotten certain personal info on myself, he came up with a decidedly weak reply.

I guess I should've known better than to expect a straight answer from Runaround Dave. But when you tell someone else you have their home address (even though you haven't given it to them), you could at least reveal the source, to prevent further leaks. Here's what Dave told me, instead:

Elementary my dear Watson. You seem to forget that us ‘witches’ are endowed with supernatural powers!

But don’t worry, we also have a great sense of honour and don’t betray confidences!

David Farrant

A pretty bogus reply by all regards. Of course, I wasn't gonna let him get off the hook that easily, so here's my response:

Well, Dave, if you had any sense of honour, why would you have my address to begin with?

Especially as I didn’t hand it over to you or anyone you know. Neither have I published it anywhere.

I mean, seriously. Why on earth would Dave have my address? What use does it have to him? Not like I'm gonna be ordering any of his merchandise anytime soon. Does it mean I'll have to resort to digging up his home address? Once again, I'll keep ya posted.

Stalker Dave

During the quest to gain information on David's new book, Pact with the Devil, I've had to put up with his usual dodgy answers. But one of his latest comments goes beyond mere shadiness and reveals the darkness behind the jovial facade.

I've given warnings about allowing your personal info to fall into VRS hands (see: here and here). This policy isn't just restricted to them, though. You see, while in the midst of yet another sales pitch, David lets on that he's just as capable of harvesting personal info from his "enemies", too:

When the VRS started using my real name, publicly, while I was utilising an alias, the source of their info was easy to trace: it was me. All because of a bloody e-mail I sent them; its address incorporated my actual name. A big goof on my part.

But in this case, what makes Dave's allusion especially disturbing, is that I haven't sent him or anyone he knows my home address! And I obviously haven't posted it up anywhere on the web. So, here's what I wrote back:


Will he respond directly or will it be brushed aside with yet another sidetracking response? Will he bother replying at all? I'll keep ya posted.