Won't Even Admit It, Despite Being Caught Red-Handed

Well, now even the warning blog entry's been deleted, as well as my comment asking him if he'd fess up to his plagiarism.

That comment was also deleted, and the Bishop's replaced it with this comment on his own "?" post:


As you can see, not only did he refuse to 'fess up to it, he's now falsely claiming that it falls under "abusive content" and suggests that I wrapped my comment in "innuendo and conjecture".

Talk about a wolf in sheep's clothing.

His failure to face up to his own actions, lie and engage in censorious activities is highly reminiscent of his archnemesis.

Here's what I posted after his comment:

Do you see anything "abusive" there? Is it "wrapped in innuendo and conjecture"?

I don't think so.

It goes without saying that the comment will most likely be deleted and unacknowledged. Thank goodness for the PrtScn button on the keyboard.

This'll be a testament showing the kind of dodgy practices the Bishop is willing to employ.

Sneaky Bish

After rumbling the Bishop engaging in:

• Blatant plagiarism
• Tampering with evidence

I queried him on his possible connection to the BNP, only to have my comment mysteriously vanish off his blog.

Now we've got something else to add to the chronicle of deception.

He's since gone and made a cute little post up called "Warning!":


Rather than "confess" his deceit, he's decided to compound it by attempting to block "unsympathetic, even antipathetic" commentators from his blog.

This basically means that if you're in any way remotely critical of the Bishop's acts of fraud and deception, then you can forget trying to get him to explain himself!

Nonetheless, let's give it a shot, shall we? Here's what I've just added to his "?" post:


So, will the Bishop have the decency to confess to his sins of omission? Stay tuned!

David Farrant: Incredibly Thick or Blatant Liar?

In the previous post, I questioned whether David was delusional, outright deceptive, or both.

The latest example of these attributes comes by way of his contributions to the Arcadia forum.

After once again sidestepping his own claims that he thinks the Highgate Vampire is still active, David decided to ask me questions, instead:

1 Do you believe in ghosts?

2 Do you believe in vampires?

3 If the answer to the latter is 'yes', then do you believe in 'giant vampire spiders'?

I answered his queries in my next post, even offering to expand on why I think spirits of the dead don't exist.

I mentioned that I didn't believe in vampires in answering question 2 and responded with "See above" to question 3. Anyone would know that this meant that the answer I gave for question 2 would be the same as the one for question 3.

But not our Dave:

I'll tell you why I ask when you get around to question 3 without trying to defer it back to a previous question.

Again (which you didn't answer)

3 Do you believe in 'giant vampire spiders'?

So, in my reply, I tried to make it a little bit more clearer for him, by mentioning '"See above' was a direct reference to my lack of belief in vampires." In answering his question more directly, I wrote:

Vampire spiders do exist, but what you're actually referring to is a vampire changing into a giant spider, as per Manchester's account of events.

So, in context with my lack of belief in vampires, no, I don't. In fact, I even wrote a blog entry on the possible origin of this "scene" in Manchester's book.

I linked to the blog entry so he could see for himself.

By his next reply, it finally seemed to sink into his head, when he mentioned, "Thank you for qualifying Question 3, so you don’t believe in ‘giant vampire spiders’."

And it would've been fine if he left it at that, but he had to ruin it all at the end of his post:

But in this case (rather in your case), would it be fair to assume that you don’t believe in the literal sense of vampires – you know, the type as portrayed by Hammer films and which can be destroyed by being ‘staked through the heart’. Am I right here, as I feel you somewhat avoided this question?

As I mentioned, I had already answered him with a "no" and explained why. So, in the next post, I tackled the vampire stuff once again. Regarding the Giant Vampire Spider issue, I added:

As I said, if I don't believe in vampires, then why would I believe that they could change into giant spiders? Also note that I said "no, I don't".

The next portion of the post was largely taken up in explaining why I don't believe in ghosts, from a theological perspective. Then I addressed the naturalistic possibilities behind the origins of the vampire "myth":

Even Montague Summers, a believer in vampires, suggested that such causes (like premature burial) could be a source of part of the vampire "myth".

Of course, that doesn't mean other writers, like yourself, don't give it a different, supernatural twist.

Which I've covered elsewhere.

Regarding the Hammer-style vampires, I also mentioned:

The Hammer film versions are riffs on the folkloric variant via Stoker.

So, even if we take the vampire to be a demon-possessed corpse, it's doubtful that it'd be restrained by a stake through the heart. In fact, some folklorists believe that the stake's function was actually to pin the corpse down, not destroy it, which is why other means like decapitation and cremation were also employed.

And I then pointed him to a previous explanation, clearly indicating that I don't believe in vampires. I even concluded it by adding, "So, in other words 'no, I don't' as I said before."

Can't get much more clearer than that, right?

Well, not to our Dave.

Regarding my elaborate explanation of why I think ghosts don't exist, within a theological context, he wrote "we have not really discussed this (or rather you haven't here) so that could really wait until a future date."

He then gave away that despite asking questions, and having them answered, he doesn't really bother to pay attention to what people actually write:

But I'll come back on the 'vampire' issue. (Incidentally, I don't know why you introduced other people when I asked about 'giant spiders'? The 'spider myth' is well known in occult lore. Do you remember the Dennis Wheatley film "The Devil Rides Out", for example? In the film - Christopher Lee I believe it was - was trappped inside a huge magical Circle when a 'giant spider' suddenly materialised. It couldn't reach them because the perimeter of the Circle was 'sealed'. Just one such example!).

After attempting to make him see that I actually had discussed ghosts, I responded to his beef with me mentioning "other people" in conjunction with giant vampire spiders:

Because I was giving it a context. You asked if I believed in "giant vampire spiders", but that was a pointed dig at your archnemesis, Sean Manchester. You know it. It relates directly to his claim that the vampire "Luisa" changed into a giant spider, in their final showdown.

You've talked about this elsewhere, and I'd be happy to cite it for you. So enough of that "why did I introduce other people" malarkey.

Also, I revealed that vampire spiders do exist, but had to clarify why you asked me that question, so as to give a context for my answers, i.e., if I don't think vampires are real, why would I believe they could transform into giant spiders?

Pretty straight-forward, right?

I then pointed out to him that I had already linked him to a blog entry I wrote, that makes a direct connection between the The Devil Rides Out and the giant vampire spider in Manchester's book. To make sure he got it, I linked him again and bolded it.

But David's mention that the "'spider myth' is well known in occult lore" got me thinking. You see, as Dave has explained elsewhere, he is a psychic investigator and has been involved with the occult for many years. So, I decided to ask him, "As a "psychic" investigator and dabbler in the occult, do you believe in these giant occult spiders?"

Strangely, he completely side-stepped it in his reply, and mentioned that, "Us authors tend to only concentrate at one thing at a time, and not get 'bogged down' in frivilous issues which have been introduced here."

In light of his frequent contributions to the forum and other blogs, this claim was somewhat doubtful.

I called him out on his apparent busyness and tackled the giant spider issue again, in my follow-up post. He replied thusly, once again, revealing his sheer inanity: "Personally, I don't believe that either Anthony; no. But you have appeared to do so, as your silence on that has been 'almost deafening'!"

That's right. My "silence".

At this point, there wasn't much point in maintaining civility when David was resorting to such obviously thick-headed (or deceptive) tactics. So, I wrote: "You must be incredibly thick. I very clearly answered your question regarding giant vampire spiders."

I also decided to tackle the Giant Occult Spider from a different angle, in context with David's own claims about supernatural beings:

No worries. In the meantime (and since you're obviously not as "bogged down" as you make yourself out to be), do you believe that psychic entities can shapeshift?

Naturally, David decided to side-step this issue and claim, once again, that I hadn't answered his question:

As I said (without even answering your other points about 'ghosts' or unexplained phenenoma), your response to this seems to have been 'deafening'. Why? forget 'shape-shifting' or anything of that kind, I am just interested to know why you keep ignoring this particular case?

He also added something that was supposed to indict me. You know, relating to the person he "doesn't like talking about":

How do you personally explain this alleged incident, which had no relation to myself?

Interested to hear your answer, considering you were once a member of this particular individuals's Forum. Well??

It's hard to say what I wrote up in the first line of my response, as it has been censored by the forum's moderators.

But, after that, I clearly addressed (yet again) his absurd claim I hadn't answered his question concerning giant vampire spiders:

I answered your query regarding whether or not I believe in giant vampire spiders (answer: no).

I also mentioned and linked twice to a blog entry I wrote, which examines Manchester's claim from a skeptical perspective, i.e., that he probably took the giant vampire spider scene from the 1968 adaptation of Dennis Wheatley's novel, The Devil Rides Out.

I went on to mention that I have previously disclosed my (former) membership of the Bishop's message boards and also revealed that David was being deceptive in not acknowledging that I was also banned from them.

In summing up my responses to David's bizarre persistence with the Giant Vampire Spider issue, I mentioned:

I couldn't get anymore clearer on this matter other than writing "No, I don't believe in giant vampire spiders" in big, black texta on the side of a mallet, then beating you over the head with it.

Then, I decided to tackle the ability of "psychic entities" to shapeshift, and tried to make the query a little bit more simpler for his sensibilities: "Do you believe they can shapeshift? Yes or no."

And that, for now, is where we're at.

David continues to engage in his labyrinthine attempts at deception and idiocy. But, I see through it, clear as day. It's a shame that more members don't call him out on it.

But that's ok, too, because, with each twist and turn, his credibility is whittled further and further away. We have to be mindful that his version of the Highgate Vampire Case pretty much hinges on his sole eyewitness testimony.

And what's a Case without a credible witness?

Freedom of Speech and the Highgate Vampire

David claims strong principles when it comes to discussing the Highgate Vampire Case or publishing copyright-violating satirical comics, that target his "enemies" (i.e., people critical of his claims):

That comic ‘satirized’ myself as much as everyone else. But I was not responsible for its original publication;; including, I might add, depicting you as a ‘water hogg’ (or whatever it was) who had joined forces with the ‘other camp’. Why did I re-publish it? (and its on Amazon incidentally). Because I happen to believe in freedom of speech, providing this happens to be honest and fair and does not set out to injure, libel or abuse other people.

Even in dealing with the insane ramblings of Carol, he reveals, once again, an integral ethic in discussing the Case:

But my policy has always been to answer any questions about anything I may have said relating to the paranormal. And I have often gone into this question of time before. To ignore her question would otherwise be to somehow betray this basic principle.

That's why it's a shame he's wildly inconsistent and can't stick to his own principles. His blog entry, "I Don't Know Why I Bother Really" was written as a response to me concerning David's various claims about the Highgate Vampire and his repeated use of the term, "vampire" despite claiming not to believe in them. Here's a snippet:

Thought I better do a Blog tonight, as Gareth is coming over tomorrow and might not get a chance then. I have already promised my “friend” The Overseer (from ‘down under’) that I answer something for him and that I’d do it on Friday. I don’t know why I bother really concerning myself with old history concerning non-existent ‘vampires’ but I have always tried to answer questions where these concern matters which are in the public domain.

In response, I wrote the following comment:


Which is why it was slightly bewildering that he followed it with this:


I made no bones about this blatant contradiction:


He then offered to talk about this Case "in the public domain" by e-mail.

It goes without saying that David's claim of not wishing "to discuss Highgate, ‘vampires’ or ‘him’ [Sean Manchester -ed.] on here" is directly contradicted by multiple posts covering those topics. Indeed, his latest blog entry makes reference to being contacted by a TV company, for whom he'll be participating in "another interview on the Highgate case very soon."

Maybe he's delusional?

After all, when a member of the Arcadia forum, Caledfwlch, made very clear references and citations of David's own vampire-hunting activity (even providing photographs)...

I am not asking you to discuss "other vampire hunters" here, or "other people". I am asking you to discuss yourself and nobody else. You did, after all, once describe yourself to the media and the general public as a vampire hunter.

....David not only revealed a hole in his answer-all-questions policy, but refused to even acknowledge that the person Caledfwlch was very obviously describing, was Dave himself:

To remind you again, I am NOT prepared to discuss the activities of other ‘vampires hunters’ here – or the activities of any other people for that matter.

"By "other vampire hunters" you presumably mean other than yourself?" (says yourself)

My answer to you still stands, “Caldefwich” and I am NOT going to discuss ‘other vampire hunters’ – or rather people who claimed to be ‘vampire hunters’ and/or gave televised advice on how to destroy vampires.

So, David's either nuttier than a fruitcake or incredibly deceptive like his old chum, the Bishop.

Or maybe both.

Comment Vanishes

Just as I suspected it would.

The comment I posted on the Bishop's blog entry, concerning his possible sympathies or affiliation with the British National Party has "mysteriously" disappeared:


Obviously, the Bishop doesn't like people being aware that he's a plagiarist and considers BNP material to be an authoritative source on his "own" copy-n-paste "opinions".