Saturday, September 26, 2009

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.


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!


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


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.

Glimmer of Hope Still Remains

In the time since my previous post, the negotiations have been somewhat stalled.


Well, JBC (and others) take umbrage at my pointing out that Manchester made the initial invite. Apparently, certain qualifiers for the meet, were not in David's favour. Or, as JBC says:
Oh I disagree.

"Travel to MY house, post on MY blog, contact ME first" offered Manchester.

I don't see why these terms must be set in stone and unchangeable. Why should David not be allowed to renegotiate terms more favourable to himself?
Lone Stranger also argues for a meeting on neutral ground:
I agree with JBC, too.

Think of it like a Godfather movie, AH. The heads of two "Families" meet at a neutral location. T. Soprano doesn't meet with the Lupertazzis on Lupertazzis' turf and vise versa.

Under Bonky's terms, he is holding all the cards and David must compromise. That's not fair. Bonky will have to compromise too, for the meeting to be fair and equal for both parties. That's how diplomacy works.
However, as I pointed out:
What's been forgotten here, is that Manchester sent the invite first. That is, invited him over.

David long as Dennis was present. Manchester said he'd ask Dennis along.

Then, David said he wanted Manchester to admit that he was actually "Demonologist".

Now, he wants Manchester to contact him, as well.

And you guys are saying that Manchester's holding all the cards?

Come on.

That said, there's no issue with meeting on a neutral ground. Or, the "Godfather" situation, as JBC puts it.

No quarrel there.

However, that means that a private place would need to be decided. I'm not exactly hugely familiar with the local Highgate area.

So, that leaves another option...

David, have you considered inviting Manchester over to your joint?
I'm not gonna be surprised if the suggestion doesn't take. After all, this is turning into the back and forth game I feared it would.

My attempts at diplomacy are somewhat hampered by the Bishop's comment on his blog:
No further comments on this matter will be accepted from anyone other than the individual whom it concerns.
And seeing as David is quite transparently reluctant to do that, it looks like we could be headed for a stalemate, thus, drawing out the feud...yet again.

Friday, September 25, 2009

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:

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:
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!

Thursday, September 24, 2009

Postscript to the Previous Post

I was just about to write this on the Bishop's blog:

That's fine. I mainly wanted to know if you use the usernames "Vampirologist" and/or "Demonologist". You clarified that you did not.

You also agreed to ask Dennis to come, and said you were "reasonably confident" that he'd agree. That's cool.

You've established that you have no objections to meeting Farrant, either. That is fine, also.

As I've said before, I only hope peace to come out of this. The terms are reasonable. There's not much stopping it from happening. Great.
When I noticed that Carol's comment had been deleted and this added in its stead:
No further comments on this matter will be accepted from anyone other than the individual whom it concerns [that is, David Farrant -ed.].
He certainly don't waste time!

I hurriedly notified David about the Bishop's response:

The Bishop now says he won't accept anymore comments on the meet...apart from yourself.

So, by all means, discuss the matter with the Bishop on his "Public Request for Private Meeting" blog entry.
Serve to Farrant.

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
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:

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.

I'm Not Liking This

I certainly hope the Bishop gets around to answering which usernames he uses online.

Because, his latest actions have instead involved deleting comments from "Public Request for Private Meeting".

After yet another senseless Carol rant, I wrote:
Why the other comments here were deleted, I can not say.

There is nothing wrong with asking the Bishop what other usernames he uses online, Carol.

As I said, this is part of a process to bring he and Farrant closer to meeting. It'd also help erase doubt of anything untoward happening.

In a comment that has been deleted, I asked whether you were actually against steps towards the Bishop and Farrant resolving their dispute. More specifically, the proposed meeting toward the two.

And Bishop Manchester,

I certainly hope you get around to answering the query over which other usernames you use, rather than continue to delete these comments.
This thing isn't gonna get swept aside so easily.

I've saved the page and will be happy to publish screeshots if there's any denial of these comments being made.

It shouldn't be too difficult for the Bishop to answer which usernames he uses online, unless he truly does have something to hide.

David is still adamant that Dennis Crawford (the online version, at least) and Manchester are the same people:

Its not the 'same thing' at all, Anthony.

Can't you just grt it thtough your 'undersised head', they ('Dennis' and 'Bonky') are really one and same prson?

When you begn to understand that, you might just begin to understand what I am saying.

But I guess these things take time to register!

But if you can really understand that, there would really be no need for further arguement, and you would have got the whole point.

If only!!
His response irked me enough to write the following:

Stop being an utter twat.

You know very well why I refer to Dennis as a separate entity.

I've repeatedly explained my stance on public evidence, to you.

You can flap your arms scream it till you're blue in the face, but without publicly reproducible evidence, I can't merely state that Dennis is Manchester.

You would know this very well from that letter you showed me, allegedly from the VRS, via e-mail.

As I pointed out in my previous comment:

"The Bishop agreed to ask Dennis to come along too.

"Thus, if Dennis does rock up, it renders the whole alias thing null and void, as the gist of it is, that you don't think Dennis is a real person."

Therefore, you will obtain a degree of vindication, won't you?

All it takes, is for you to actually turn up there.

Enough with the petty excuses and distractions.

The rest of this is now in Manchester's court.

I've asked him what other usernames he uses, and, as of this writing, I'm still awaiting a reply.

He quite obviously got the message, as I've been showing on my blog, so we'll have to wait until he actually responds.

He can't hide from it that easily, now.
For the record, I'll say that the Bishop deleting the comments, rather than reply to them, is quite a worrying sign. He's doing himself no favours there.

Obviously, there's a lot of tension behind this whole thing. There's already been attempts to scuttle it, courtesy of the sniping on the sidelines. The waiting game isn't helping. Neither are the stipulations that keep rolling in (I wouldn't be surprised if more crop up).

But, as I said, it's now up to the Bishop. All he has to do is reveal which other usernames he uses in discussing the Highgate Case, and we're practically home free.

Flies at the Picnic

As of this writing, I'm still awaiting the Bishop's reply on what pseudonyms he uses online.

I previously asked the Bishop, "Do you use any other usernames online? If so, what are they?"

He responded thusly, in "From DNA to Demons":
Not so as to appear anonymous. My identity would always be clear even if I employ a title which does not include my name in it. One username, for example, is "Apostle of Jesus Christ."
This, however, doesn't detail how many, or what variety he uses.

Carol Dietzler aka SteadfastCarol, someone I previously defended when she was getting abused on The Cross and the Stake forum, is one of the Bishop's supporters. She chose to butt in with one of her usual inane rants, claiming that I know
very well what pseudo-names go with who; so then, WHY does he ask questions that he already has answers for, or, that he has REPEATEDLY ASKED, or, he uses such repetitive discourse to "needle" and to cause dissension and strife, all very clear.
She also requests that the Bishop not answer my query about his other usernames:
Dear Bishop, you disservice yourself to answer these redundant lame questions and the answers are related above AGAIN for the umpteenth time; its all about playing cat and mouse with you, like the bratty teen girls play on boys their own age.
What Carol is obviously oblivious to, is that the query on usernames is a response to David's request that the Bishop reveal whether or not he is "Demonologist" aka "Vampirologist". It is part of the process in making this meeting between the two, happen.

So, here's what I wrote back:

You seriously need to get a grip on yourself.

The Bishop has not previously been explicit about which other usernames he has.

The question was also specifically asked in order to help facilitate a meeting between the Bishop and Farrant, as part of a process of healing.

A far more Christian notion than your hate-filled, all-over-the-shop rants.
JBC is obviously keen for this meeting to occur, as well, as his usual acerbic tone has been somewhat what tempered and even goes out of his way to suggest other possibilities regarding the Bishop's online pseudonyms:
David, isn't it "possible" that 'Dennis Crawford" is Brother Keith [Keith Maclean -ed.]...Tony Hill...Mrs. Bonkers [Sarah Manchester -ed.], etc. ?

Someone who knows the bishop quite well could give the appearance of being him online. For example, the The Yorkshire Pudding [Catherine Fearnley -ed.] was once very actively posting in your behalf.

Just saying, perhaps it's possible he uses aliases, but not all of them could be himself?
David, however, isn't one to be moved so easily:
That's a fair point, Cat

All I can say is, there is absolutely no doubt that the person calling themselves 'Dennis Crawford' is really the person really known here = and widely elsewhere - as 'Bonky.

There is absolutely no doubt about it.
However, as I pointed out in my response to him:

The Bishop agreed to ask Dennis to come along too.

Thus, if Dennis does rock up, it renders the whole alias thing null and void, as the gist of it is, that you don't think Dennis is a real person.
Here's hoping.

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.

Wednesday, September 23, 2009

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.


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!

Sunday, September 20, 2009

Username Becomes Real Name

I've decided to bite the bullet and start signing off with my real name.

After all, Dennis Crawford, International Secretary of the Vampire Research Society has done so well subverting my attempt at anonymity (see also: "Unmasked!"), I figure there's not much point in continuing to use my "Overseer" moniker.

It's a username he's previously hijacked, himself, after hypocritically chastising me for its usage:
I suppose as a Baptist you intend the title "Overseer" to indicate "parish officer" as distinct from "Bishop" which your denomination does not recognise as an episcopal office? 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.
Needless to say (but I'm gonna say it anyway), that usage was certainly not my intent:
My title/membership name, i.e., "The Overseer" is meant as a reference to my role as manager of this group, not a religious reference. I was not making any such comparison and indeed, was not even aware of the Scriptural verse you mentioned.
In further displays of his level of originality, he also hijacked my forum's name, which he also shamelessly uses for his blog.

Saturday, September 19, 2009

Ask a Plagiarist

It looks like the Bishop has been a bit naughty.

His blog, Bishop † Seán † Manchester, is intended to answer questions posed to him.

For example, a curious soul named "Ruben" asked whether or not shapeshifting was taught to people before the Flood, in correlation with certain passages in pseudographic Book of Enoch.

The Bishop's response appears in "Shapeshifting".

However, what doesn't appear, is the Bishop's sources of information.

The section dealing with the Book of Enoch has very clearly had portions cribbed from Wikipedia's "Book of Enoch" page and a non-Wikipedia article called "The Book of Henoch (Ethiopic)". The section on shapeshifting takes another, uncredited bite out of Wikipedia.

So, after all that, what is the Bishop's actual response? This:
I could not opine as to whether shapeshifting was taught to men prior to the Flood. What I will say is that the phenomenon is not uncommon among demons
The plagiarism doesn't stop there, either.

Our friend, Ruben, also asked the Bishop's for his definition of a "heretic".

To respond to him, the Bishop opted for a bit of Internet Theology: portions are cribbed from Wikipedia's page on "Sedevacantism", the Catholic Enyclopedia's "Heresy" article and's definition of "Heresy".

When Ruben asked for the Bishop's thoughts on "telikinesis" [sic], the Bishop responded with extracts cribbed from Wikipedia's "Psychokinesis" page.

The Bishop's actual thoughts were summed up thusly:
I retain an absolutely open mind on the question of telekinesis, having witnessed far more bizarre and unexplained phenomena than objects mysteriously moving or being moved by the power of someone's mind.

Monday, September 14, 2009

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".

Sunday, September 13, 2009

Youngson Responds

As mentioned in "Update on the Varma Correspondence", I sent an e-mail to Jeanne Keyes Youngson concerning alleged correspondence she had been sent from Gothic Scholar, Devendra P. Varma (1923-1994), concerning negative views of Seán Manchester.

Youngson is the President and Founder of the Vampire Empire (formerly the International Count Dracula Fan Club) and has been an active and respected participant in vampire fandom and study since 1965.

Her e-mail response was dated Saturday, 12 September 2009 12:12 AM.

In regard to Varma's views on Manchester, and her own dealings with Manchester, she wrote this:
He attacked me and members of the VE staff for no reason at all. Never met the man which made it even more peculiar that he would go out of his way to slander us. As for Varma, he spent two extra days with us here in New York visiting the Dracula Museum. It was very exciting to spend quality time with such a learned man. He said one of the worst mistakes he had ever made was to have anything at all to do with Manchester.
She also gave me permission to reprint it, so she obviously stands by her claims.

The question is, will the VRS continue to revere Varma as their "Honorary Vice-President"?

Friday, September 11, 2009

Read All About It

I think it's time I add a blog roll to this thing.

Here's the list:
It's called "Reading List" and you'll find it to the right of the blog, underneath "Labels".

Update on the Varma Correspondence

I previously wrote about a potential bombshell concerning Devendra P. Varma and his alleged correspondence with David Farrant.

I asked David - several times - to reproduce this correspondence. He finally replied with this:
For you Overseer; if this message finds its way through the wreckage!

Overseer, its not quite as easy as that. All the Varma stuff is on my older computer and my scanner's not working for that at the moment. Means I have to find it then transfer it all over manually by disc. These things take time, and I do not have much spare at the moment.
Hmm. It's funny, because a lot of his time, at the moment, seems to be taken up commenting on John Baldry's Cat's "Farrant Rates Women of the World" post, about his pet subject, "Bonky"!

He also added:
In the meantime why don't you email Jeanne Youngson yourself at her Vampire Empire? Sure she would love to help. Say I suggested it if you want.
Here was my response:
Now, David. Ok, I'll buy your line about the Varma stuff. But keep in mind, you make a serious accusation about a guy who's been dead for 15 years.

Thus, you should at least have the courtesy of validating your claim.

In turn, I'll contact Youngson about this Manchester and Varma stuff.

But do keep up your end of the bargain.

And, while we're at it, why don't you post up some scans (not transcripts) of this alleged Manchester-you correspondence.
True to my word, I have contacted her about it. I eagerly await her response, as much as I await David's reproduction of said correspondence.

Thursday, September 3, 2009

Staking Himself in the Foot?

In a recent comment to John Baldry Cat's "Farrant Rates the Women of the World", David discusses some of the earliest writings on the Highgate Vampire:
For everybody’s information the first major book that appeared on the Highgate Vampire case was by Basil Copper in 1973 under the title “The Vampire in Legend, Fact and Literature” by Robert Hale in London in hardback. This book was republished by “Corgi” in paperback in1975 under the title “The Vampire in Legend, Fact and Art [ISBN 0 552 09802 7].

This book contained a long chapter on myself and our investigation into the Highgate ‘vampire’ case, although Bonky was not even mentioned (sorry!).
David also writes:
His chapter deals with my arrest in Highgate Cemetery in 1970 and goes on to detail our findings in that case.
Bonky had not got around inventing his vampire fiction at this time and other people who were making all sorts of claims about that case were really regarded as ‘non-entities’.
As it happens, I own a copy of Basil Copper's The Vampire: In Legend, Fact and Art (London: Corgi Books, 1975).

The chapter that discusses the Highgate Vampire is called "Nights in Highgate Cemetery" (199-204).

Let's see how Copper describes Farrant in the text:
The hunt followed a television interview the previous night, Friday the 13th, in which 24-year-old David Farrant had spoken of his plans to go to the cemetery to put a stake throught the heart of a vampire which was lurking in the graveyard (199).
More coverage is given to his vampire-hunting antics:
Mr. Farrant's vampire-hunt that night ended in the prosaic arms of the law as he was caught by a policeman climbing out armed with a wooden cross and a sharpened stake. But as he walked from court he commented, 'I won't rest until I catch the vampire of Highgate Cemetery.' (200)
There are more, equally damning mentions of David's vampire-hunting past, like his telling the court that he would, "have gone into the catacomb, searched through the coffins until I recognised the vampire sleep in one and then I would have driven my stake through its heart." (201)

There's also his mention of having "100 members" of the British Occult Society all over Britain "and Europe searching for vampires" (201). And so on.

Part of David's "investigation", involved stalking about Highgate Cemetery, armed with a cross and stake, in the presence of journalist Barrie Simmons, for an article called, "Midnight Vigil for the Highgate Vampire" (Evening News, Oct. 16, 1970).

In light of all the vampire-hunting references, David also mentions in the article that he didn't believe in vampires in "the commercial sense of the word" (203), not believing that they suck blood. So, he probably courted the vampire hunting angle for publicity's sake.

But, back to the blog entry.

Depending on one's interpretation, the "first major book" that gave coverage to the subject wasn't Copper's, but Donald F. Glut's True Vampires of History (1971). I shall refer to my Castle Books edition.

The mention is brief, but it's clear who's being referred to:
In August, 1970, Reuters told of a twenty-four year-old man named Allan Farrow who was arrested for trespassing in a London graveyard. Farrow, armed with a crucifix and a sharpened wooden state [sic], was caught by police at St. Michael's Churchyard. He said that he was on his way to Highgate Cemetery, where a vampire was supposedly hiding.
"I decided to visit it and see if I could find the vampire and destroy it," said Farrow. "Had the police not arrived it was my intention to make my way to the gravestones and the catacombs in search of the vampire." (190)
"Allan Farrow", is, of course, one of the pseudonyms used by David Farrant.

Wednesday, September 2, 2009

Peas in a Pod

It seems that TFO ("Demonologist") has inadvertently revealed how entwined Manchester and Farrant are in the Highgate Vampire Case.

In this comment to John Baldry Cat's "Farrant Rates Women of the World", TFO displays his uncanny grasp of minutiae concerning the good Bishop. In this case, discussing other publishers who were interested in Manchester's tale, The Highgate Vampire.

However, it wound up being published by the British Occult Society in 1985, an organisation Manchester served as president of, at the time. Why? Here's one reason:
One of the amendments to his manuscript that was found unacceptable by him [Manchester -ed.] was the excising of all reference to Farrant whom the publisher saw as superfluous to the account.
TFO then presents a speculative what-if scenario, also inadvertently revealing how indebted Farrant should be to Manchester, for helping him turn Farrant into a renowned public figure:
If the same book was being written today, Seán Manchester would probably not mention Farrant who, if he is known at all (I've lost count of all the people who have said they would never have heard of Farrant but for reading Seán Manchester's book) it is because of the success of "The Highgate Vampire" which is about to be turned into a major cinema film.
Good one.

Of course, the "if he is known at all" statement is especially amusing not only in light of TFO frequently mentioning Farrant in his writings, but also being a follower of VRS Member Arminius Vámbéry's Farrant-devoted blog, In the Shadow of the Highgate Vampire.

And he's not the only one.

The Not-So-Autonomous FoBSM

Previous claims have held that Manchester has no involvement with the faceless FoBSM, especially considering TFO's word on the group:
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.
So then one's really gotta ask why he's an admin on its Facebook group (along with David Carter-Green and Ordo Sancti Graal).

In fact, its website contact info is a link to Bishop † Seán † Manchester, the blog in which Manchester answers readers' questions.


Related Posts with Thumbnails