Friday, February 26, 2010

DAWWIH Branches Out

I was having a browse through the Highate Vampire Society and Vampire Research Society Facebook groups, when I thought "Hmm, I want a piece of that."

So, I've gone and made myself a Facebook profile and started up a Did a Wampyr Walk in Highgate? Facebook group!

Try not to get too excited.

Thus far, I've added Dave, Manchester, Arminius, Patsy, Alex, Carol and David Carter-Green to join my Facebook profile. Let's see if they do. Hahaha!

I've also joined the HVS and VRS Facebook groups, too. Let's see how long I last. In the meantime, here's my first posting to the VRS:

And here's my first posting on to the HVS:

Turning the Wheels of Self-Publicity

The "conversation" that ensues between songstress (Patsy) and David Farrant on the "Highgate Vampire" thread on the Healthypages forum seems innocent at first.

She gets the ball rolling with this:
Dear All,

Has anyone heard of the cause celebre of the 1970's named 'The Highgate Vampire', and if so, does anyone remember it?

Other contributors jump in (including Dennis aka "Vampirologist"). The 35th post on the thread details her experience with the VRS:

I contacted the VRS President several times in 2003 and 2004, by e-mail, asking for details of the case. No reply was forthcoming, until I asked to see archived material, which is advertised on the VRS website. A very curt and nasty reply was sent to my work e-mail address, asking why 'someone from ***** would be interested in the Highgate case' and went on to say that 'archived material and other information about the case would not be disclosed 'to people outside of the investigation.' I decided to search elsewhere for the information about the case. The VRS President had my e-mail address at work, and sent me a very nasty e-mail, which was covered in pictures of other people, and which could have cost me my job.
Oh who, who could ever help her in her plight against the evil VRS dragons? Who would be her knight in shining armour?

What's that coming over the hill? Is it...yes, it's Dave!
Hi Everyone

Just wanted to post here because I know Songstress personally and I was the person central to the 'Highgate Vampire Affair' back in the late 60/s early 70/s.

First of all (very briefly), I would like to ask Songstress to keep posting. After all, Songstress did start the thread and I do not feel it right that she feels it necessary to 'abandon' her own thread just because of some 'minor intimidation' about the report she is undertaking. I have seen much of Songstresses research, and I can verify that she is totally objective. (Other people might not be, but that is really their problem!).
She expresses eternal gratitude:
Hello Mr Farrant,

I am glad that you take my research seriously. It's a long-awaited study into an old case, as you know.

You will be a great asset to HP, with your knowledge and experience in the field of paranormal research.
The banter labours on. David voices his enthusiasm for Patsy's research:
For Patsy,
I certainly look forward to seeing you again at the end of the week, Patsy, and to reading your report on the Highgate ‘vampire’ case. Hopefully this will be published in a month or so, and I can only say that a thorough report on that case is long overdue. (36 years or so ‘long overdue’ – although I am obviously not implying this relates to yourself!).
He even treads the fine line of promotion in his appraisal:
I have just been privileged to see an advanced copy of the "Highgate Vampire Report" (52 pages) by Patsy which has been referred to earlier on here, and which is scheduled for release before Christmas. I mustn’t give too much away at this stage, but, as I was involved personally at the centre of the whole business back in the early 1970’s, Patsy has given me her permission to give a very brief synopsis . . .
Patsy's humility (bless her!) shines through once again:
Hello David,

Thank you for your appraisal. I am pleased that you find the report useful. I am rather an ingenue when it comes to my work being published. I was simply the scribe; many other people helped, especially with the research material and personal visits to the places mentioned in the book.
The report that they refer to, is Patsy "songstress" Langley's The Highgate Vampire Casebook (2007). It weighs in at a mammoth 52 pages.

But it's a shame that with all the slobbering going on, neither of them sought to disclose the fact that David's publishing wing, the British Psychic and Occult Society was actually responsible for its publication. Its listing and an advertisement for the report in David's website, give the game away.

Despite the formal, gentle tone they use in the forum thread, they were already in cahoots beforehand.

So, essentially, they turned the Healthypages forum thread into a protracted, saccharine infomercial to hawk their wares.

Disturbingly, shades of this appear to be occurring on the Arcadia forum. A mysterious member named damiana recently posted this:

A new book written by a conspiracy theory expert will be out in around two weeks, in which a chapter is devoted to this subject. Right up to the Red Monkey film team pulling out after they had been interviewed by Lady Armytage and her flunkeys, and the recent information that a local councillor was involved.

Kepp you posted
For some reason, damiana doesn't disclose the fact that she's actually Barbara Green, an associate of David. Her Red Monkey Films references are dealt with on her "Yorkshire Robin Hood Society, Summary 1983--2007" page.

The Red Monkey Films' "Big Apes" page even contains a few familiar faces.

Is Barbara secretly promoting a book she's written, or one by an affiliate? We'll have to wait and see, as she hasn't provided any further posts on the matter, as of this writing.

See, I Told Ya!

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

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

Tuesday, February 16, 2010

Two More Bite the Dust

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

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

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

And guys, get a life will ya?

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

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

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

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

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

Sunday, February 14, 2010

More Plagiarism and Dennis at It Again

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

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

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


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

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

But let's now address his third comment (13 February 2010 05:23), which I'll interject with comments of my own:
All I said previously about Anthony Hogg is that he likes to makes a nuisance of himself by trying to garner undeserved attention off the back of others, most notably Bishop Seán Manchester.
That's funny, because it was Dennis who initially decided to give attention to myself, courtesy of his rip-off forum (in which he also ripped-off my then-username, "The Overseer") . He also publicly revealed my real name, through an e-mail I sent to the VRS website.

Now, as to wanting to "garner undeserved attention", sure, I wouldn't like to be stalked by the likes of Dennis, but considering the Bishop's said I should be ignored...and Dennis keeps giving me coverage...whose fault is that?
Hogg is clearly prejudiced against the Catholic Church. Most Baptists probably are. I refer to remarks he made recently on Andrew Gough's Arcadia which are exceptionally anti-Catholic.
In his desperation to paint me as an anti-Catholic (to invoke Catherine's support, I imagine, as she's a Catholic herself), he neglects to say which anti-Catholic remarks I've made. No surprises there.
I have never described Hogg as a homosexual. I have no idea what he is and care even less. He likes to hide behind a mask where fangs are exhibited on his profile image, but this would-be "amateur vampirologist" (as he describes himself) is toothless when it comes to harassment. Bishop Manchester merely ignores him and I have a nom de plume so all Hogg can do is make assumptions about my identity; something he is not slow to attempt. It does not bother me in the slightest. Here is a lonely kid in Australia who wants to play with the grown-ups; problem being they are all situated about as far away from him as you could wish. So what does he do. He contents himself with silly, snide remarks and stalks the biggest fish in the pond who just ignores him.
Fair call, Dennis, himself, didn't refer to me as homosexual. But Clare and the Bish did. Did they ask me if I was? Did they point to anything that might suggest I'm gay? Noooo, of course not!

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

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

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

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

Now as to being ignored by the Bishop, that's not true. The Bishop saw fit to ban me from his blog after maligning me and misrepresenting my questions to him. Dennis himself doesn't ignore me, as you can see.
Nothing I have said about this pathetic stalker of Bishop Manchester could be described as "filth." Anthony Hogg's unfortunate terminology betrays something nasty about his mindset. I imagine the less we know about Hogg the better. He desperately wants controversy and will say almost anything to provoke it. Meanwhile, the world passes by and ignores him.
It can when I'm misrepresented in the way Dennis does. As to "controversy", no, I don't really want it, I'm more interested in the truth. So when I say the Bishop is a plagiarist, I can back it up.
The only person well out of his depths is this nobody in Victoria, Australia who seems to think he can become a "somebody" by attacking an elderly public figure who is very well known in the United Kingdom; someone who obviously represents everything Hogg cannot abide.

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

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

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

Saturday, February 13, 2010

Bishop Not a Fan of Multiculturalism

Once again, the Bishop has edited his "Political Affiliation" blog entry.

Mentions of the BNP have been removed, along with "I drew my statistics and some other information from elsewhere" (the Bishop's spin on his plagiaristic actions).

It's been reduced to the shadow it was before.

If you want a clearer view of his politics, all you've got to do is read one of his recent entries, "Traditional Values and Political Change". It contains gems like this:
Multiculturalism, adopted as official policy in several Western nations from the 1970s onward for reasons that varied from country to country, is something (in common with Benedict XVI) I find undesirable and inherently wrong. Multiculturalism refers to a theoretical approach and a number of policies adopted in Western nation-states which bear a striking resemblance to communism.
While not noticing the irony in this:
The perfect wedding of Graeco-Roman reason and Christian faith has always been and must always continue to be the basis of all Western culture, which in our day continues to decay because of the wickedness of men.
And there's also this
I would, finally, like to see the present culture of alcohol and drug abuse, gambling, vice, pornography and crime addressed in as radical a way as possible. These topics I have raised and discussed in radio interviews, so there is no need to elaborate further about them.
Which is kinda funny in light of his embrace (see also: "Questions Answered...Mostly!") of one of his alleged ancestors, Lord Byron, a notorious libertine:
In the year of my first pilgrimage to Lord Byron’s tomb in the company of The Byron Society whose honorary director, Mrs Elma Dangerfield, suspected a personal connection with the poet, I was still yet to hear from Professor Leslie A Marchand himself whose later correspondence in private about the “records of births and deaths of the lower (servant) class in those days” helped establish facts about the poet and Lucy, my great, great, great grandmother. Byron was seldom without consolation of the female kind and of the various servant maids who slipped between his sheets to keep him company at Newstead, Lucy was far and away his favourite.

Dennis, the Bad Smell

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

She hasn't, yet. But someone had.

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

Here's what he wrote (7 February 2010 08:20):
I wonder if Anthony Hogg could be talking about Bishop Seán Manchester when he refers to "Manchester"? (Rhetorical question with tongue firmly lodged in side of mouth.)

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

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

Hogg wants to find manure where only wild flowers flourish.

What a sad little creature this Australian youngster has revealed himself to be!
Gets more pathetic with age, doesn't he?

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

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

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

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

Show's how much you actually respect his advice.

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

You're really stooping to new depths. Of course, that's not really all that surprising.
I do hope Catherine gets back to me, and let's hope she's more level-headed than the imbecilic International Secretary of the VRS.

Monday, February 8, 2010

So He's Been Told

In the previous entry, I mentioned:
As to being "told" that I used to be the member of a forum he [Manchester -ed.] administered, he'd be aware of that himself, due to his responses to certain items I posted there. I'll show you in the next blog entry.
Waaay back in 2006, I posted the "Highgate Vampire" entry from Rosemary Ellen Guiley's The Encyclopedia of Vampires, Werewolves, and Other Monsters on my forum.

With her permission, mind you.

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

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

Told ya.

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

Time to break out the tinfoil hats!

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

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

Ah wells.

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

I guess we now have a postscript to this saga.

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

Let's start with "Clare":

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

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

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

Here's how Manchester replied:

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

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

Fail on both counts.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Way to drive your point in there, Bish!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hypocrite, much?

And finally, the Bishop wraps up with this malarkey:

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

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

But coming from a "Bishop"? Ugh.

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

Sunday, February 7, 2010

Making a Difference

Once again, the Bishop has decided to misrepresent the issue at hand (i.e., that he's a plagiarist who stole material from BNP sources, among others) and turn his deception outward.

He's conveniently tried to hide this fact in this comment posted to his "Political Affiliation" blog entry (after deleting my own), so that all readers and followers of his blog, who aren't familiar with my own, will think rather nasty things about me:

This garbage from a "man of the cloth", no less (or is he?).

Let me ask you, dear reader, if one clearly proves a "writer" is a plagiarist, then asks the plagiarist in question to acknowledge/admit to it - would you classify such entreaties as "offensive remarks"?

No matter, though. If he really is a man of Christ, then he's well-aware of the spiritual consequences of his deceptive actions.

The proof of his plagiaristic ways and deceptive counter-measures are chronicled in the following saga:
  1. Manchester vs. Google
  2. Rumbled Plagiarist Takes Evasive Action!
  3. The Bishop and the BNP
  4. Comment Vanishes
  5. Sneaky Bish
  6. Won't Even Admit It, Despite Being Caught Red-Handed
  7. About Friggin' Time!
  8. Bishop Finally Acknowledges Pilfering BNP Material. Sort Of.
On the plus side, the Bishop at least finally acknowledges reading my writings, as he gives away by referring to my contributions in "various blogs and forums, not least [my] own".

I established that the Bishop reads up on my stuff, previously, despite objections (which you'll see in the comments).

Saturday, February 6, 2010

Bishop Finally Acknowledges Pilfering BNP Material. Sort Of.

I last recounted the saga of the Bishop's attempt to hide the fact that he pilfered material from BNP sources in "About Friggin' Time".

Once again, he's pared-down what I actually wrote into one, handy bite-size sentence, this time editing it (and his reply) into the same post:
If you have "no faith in the political system", then why did you choose to comment on a political figure? - Anthony Hogg, Australia.
Rather than address his plagiaristic ways, he merely alludes to the sources in question:
I was asked a question about a particular American political figure. As I have no interest in American politics, I drew my statistics and some other information from elsewhere. That one source might be from a Protestant does not make me a Protestant. That another might be from a radical Roman Catholic group does not make me a radical Roman Catholic. And that yet another might be from a political party with a view on the topic not dissimilar to my own does not make me an affiliate or member of that party.
The "political party with a view on the topic not dissimilar to my own", of course, is the BNP.

Also, it's one thing to draw one's "statistics and some other information from elsewhere", it's another to blatantly copy-n-paste them, sans attribution.

When a reader asks for the Bishop's opinion on an issue, then surely said reader would expect the opinion to be the Bishop's
own, not something blatantly cribbed from other people's writings.

Further down his post, the BNP finally achieves some acknowledgment - but maybe not in the way you'd expect:
To his credit, Benedict XVI has spoken out against unfair legislation from Europe which will soon not allow British churches to discriminate against the appointment of homosexuals and transsexuals. All the political parties are too liberal on these matters (and I include small parties like UKIP and the BNP) because the law forbids them to be otherwise.
Of course, I'm not gonna let him get away with it that easily. Here's what I wrote back:

Will he ever bloody admit it? Will he ever take responsibility for his actions?

Wait and see!

Just to Clarify

In the Arcadia forum, I referred to David's alleged sightings of "7 foot tall, red eyed beings that hide behind cemetery gates" at Highgate.

He said, "I am asking you what YOU believe - not your interpretation of what you think I saw."

For the record, I did answer his question(s).

But, just to clarify, here's what David claims to have actually seen:
His own encounter with the ‘entity’, as he cautiously calls it, is still vivid in his mind: “The only way that I can describe it is that it looked so real that at first I thought it was real. I saw this eight feet tall figure and two points of red light which I took to be his eyes, and at first I thought it was just somebody messing about frightening people, because by that time there had been a lot of press coverage on the sightings. But then, although it was a bitterly cold night, I felt the temperature drop. It was as if you opened the fridge door and put your hands into the ice box”.
The apparition vanished after some seconds leaving a sense of ‘intense evil’.
So, my mistake. I should've said eight feet tall. Glad to set the record straight there.

Of course, this doesn't discount the revisionisms in the Case that I've written about elsewhere.

A Unique Perspective

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

She was also
his girlfriend at the time:
As being David's girlfriend I might like to add that I am in contact with him every day via telephone and will be staying with him in June. Long distance relationships can and do work and this is one example and we are firmly at ease with the situation.
A status also acknowledged by Alexander Lucard. However, by August 2007, she had changed tack:
Barbara and Catherine have not arrived just Catherine. So please get your facts right. I am not fighting anyone’s battle on here except my own. You think it’s right to get your mates sending death threats through my email account and yet haven’t got the courage or the guts to face me personally. Says it all. The reason why they sent the death threats through the email is because they knew damn well that the police wouldn’t do anything because it’s not face to face. Very cowardly is it not. I happen to agree with the informative one (the genuine one) however, that talk is cheap and it shows the true mentality of the people publishing these false and malicious statements. And Farrant’s books are equally delusional.
So why the switch?

She vaguely alludes to it in her MySpace blog entry, "Welcome":
Hopefully now most of the harassment has now stopped regards to these people although my name keeps cropping up every now and then. Really a 40 odd year feud needs laying to rest, not only that but people who are obsessed by certain celebrities need to get a life like I have. You can like somebody without being so obsessed by them that you start attacking not only the celebrity in question but also their fans as well simply because they have contact with said celebrity every now and then. I will not allow this person to spoil my friendship that I have with this celebrity because the next time they threaten me they will receive a solicitors letter. They really are trying my patience big style.
I've decided to ask her directly, via her "Wintry Scenes" entry on I Did It My Way:

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

Either way, let's hope she responds.

Uh-Oh! Censorship Alert!

I just noticed that a post I wrote on Arcadia, concerning the Bishop being a plagiarist, has been removed!

I asked why this happened and am eagerly awaiting the moderators' reply.

It's Not a One-Sided Feud

I've exposed David's nonsensical claim that the feud is "one-sided, and extremely petty minded on the part of the ONE person" for the lie it is here, and now I'll present another source that confirms this.

Shawn Lindseth's "Awesome or Off-Putting: The Highgate Vampire & Its Clashing Hunters" discusses the Case, surmising it thusly:
Since the great Highgate hunt there's been at least one arrest, jail time served, and the alleged staking of the vampire as it was found in the basement of a house. There were even rumours that Manchester and Farrant would face off in a magicians duel of sorts.

As to whether or not the vampire ever actually existed – the only direct accounts come from these two. Are they just trying to sell their books? And are those books even close to honest accounts? We have no idea.

But it's interesting.

The ensuing bombardment of comments on Lindsdeth's blog entry, also attest to it being much more than a "one-sided" affair.

As further proof, have a read through Alexander Lucard's "Vampire Hunter Drama Part 3" thread.

Stone Free

A friend of David's, Gareth J. Medway (i.e., the mature, articulate one) recently chimed in on Arcadia, discussing my views on ghosts.

His post incorporated references to something I know as the Stone Tape Theory:
It is also widely thought that many 'ghost' manifestations are what have been termed 'psychic tape recordings', that is to say, occult memories of things that happened in the past, and quite independent of what may have become of the indwelling spirits of, for instance, Roman soldiers marching through York.
For those not in the know, the Theory holds that under the right circumstances, events of the past are imprinted on the "fabric" of time and can occasionally "replay" for an audience in the present. That's a very basic summation.

But, as Dave Wood's "Stone Tape Theory: An Exploration" explains:
Spiritualism can be a faith and assumption driven way of life; if one has a faith-based assumption that there is a connection between psychic events and stones and crystals then stone tape theory is a natural progression and requires no scientific justification. Other investigators, however, self-define as scientific researchers. For such investigators stone tape theory has no sound theoretical or evidential basis and should be discarded from their dictionary of paranormal terminology.
Either way, one can't apply this Theory to the Highgate Case. Otherwise, we'd be admitting that these "psychic imprints" are able to interact with people.

David's report mentions that the paranormal manifestation at Highgate were said to be of "a tall dark-draped figure with hypnotic red eyes that confronted unsuspecting people wandering around the cemetery by day", among other manifestations.

His report also mentions attacks on people:

Sightings of this apparition were numerous and it was even said to have ’attacked’ two people in Swain’s Lane outside the cemetery by pushing them to the ground ’with tremendous force’ before suddenly disappearing into the surrounding darkness. One of these ’attacks’ had been upon a young nurse back in 1970 who claimed that she had been thus ’attacked’ by a tall dark figure that had thrown her powerfully to the ground causing abrasions to her knees and elbows. Luckily, at this moment, a car came along and the figure disappeared in the glare of the headlights. Seeing that she was badly shaken, the driver took her to Highgate Police Station who immediately made a thorough search of the area. They found nothing although interestingly, at the place the figure had appeared, Swains Lane was by 15-foot high walls.
And not just any kind of attack, either, as The Highgate Vampire Society page reveals:
David Farrant was not in Highgate Cemetery for such a purpose [vampire hunting -ed.] and denied the charge of which he was acquitted, but not without the case attracting the attention of the world wide Press who established this apparition’s identity as a ‘fully-fledged vampire’. In fact, David Farrant had never stated that it was, although he did say when pushed on the matter that the reported entity seemed to take on vampire-like characteristics, or rather, that some reports about it had done so.
Bypassing those revisionist comments, David elaborates on the nature of the "attacks" in his interview with International Vampire Magazine:
Why was I inclined to admit or suggest that this particular entity or phenomenon pointed towards being "vampirical"? ... Well, during the course of the investigation it came to light that at least two independent people had been physically attacked by some unknown person or entity whilst they were passing the Cemetery late at night. They were thrown to the ground with considerable force by a figure that literally disappeared into nowhere: despite the fact that where these attacks occurred - in a small lane running alongside the Cemetery - the area was boarded by 12 foot high walls.
How can a mere "image" attack people in this manner?

Thus, I think it's safe to say that the Stone Tape Theory can be safely ruled out as an explanation for this alleged phenomena.

About Friggin' Time!

After all the evasiveness and deceptive tactics the Bishop's been employing, he finally decided to respond to my queries regarding cribbing chunks of material from BNP sources.

Unfortunately, he's pared down what I said to one, simple, ambiguous line:
Do you have any sympathy or affiliation towards the Party? - Anthony Hogg, Australia.
That's a tiny sliver of what I wrote, as you'd be aware from my previous postings on the matter. The Party I referred to, was of course, the British National Party (BNP). Once again, here's how they're described on Wikipedia (footnotes omitted):
The BNP seeks to restore the overwhelmingly white ethnicity of Britain that existed prior to 1948 through legal means, including "firm but voluntary incentives for immigrants and their descendants to return home", and the repeal of anti-discrimination legislation. It believes that there are significant differences between races. The party is ostracised by mainstream political parties in the UK.
Thus, his response is deliberately out of context with what I wrote. Even though the Bishop claims that he has
absolutely no faith in the political system and suspect I would be found unacceptable to any party which approached me today. I am content with that situation.
It still doesn't explain why he a) commentated on a political figure in the first place and b) stole chunks of his "opinion" from the right-wing BNP blog.

Clearly, he's being evasive and deceptive. Again.

But, I'll play along with his sick little game. So, here's my follow-up comment:

This should be good. At this rate, I might as well get a bloody Twitter account for this blog.


It's been established that David doesn't like talking about the Highgate Case or vampires on his blog.

So it's a shame he keeps having slip-ups like this:
Well Sunday night, and at least it’s a quiet one!

So, not much news again, expect Arcadia have now published my “17 Questions” interview and I’ve finished a short book review for that new vampire book I mentioned.
Poor thing. He really can't help himself, can he?


Not sure if I've shared this one before, but Siani's "The Highgate Vampire" is a (refreshingly) independently-written blog entry on the Highgate Case.

It's a shame the comments have been disabled, as I would've liked to reveal that one of the commentators, "Anoymous", didn't exactly have altruistic intent in linking her to the Gothic Press bookshop.


Lastly, I came across an article (under David's copyright) which inexplicably switches from third person...
It was July 9th, 2005 at 4pm; the venue, an Official Tour of London’s Highgate Cemetery. Not a particularly irregular Tour from the norm, perhaps, but maybe one almost unique in that one of the invited participants was David Farrant, a man who had been virtually banned from Highgate Cemetery back in 1973 following an investigation he conducted there into reports about a ’vampire-like’ figure that had been reported inside the cemetery. This was reputedly a tall dark-draped figure with hypnotic red eyes that confronted unsuspecting people wandering around the cemetery by day (when it was fully open to the public) and which had also been seen through the locked gates by night. The fact that the figure was reported as having ’hypnotic red eyes’ probably explained a widely circulated story that it could, in fact, be a ’vampire’. first person narrative down the page:

Intrigued by all these accounts, I had entered Highgate Cemetery one night with others (including a psychic medium) with the intention of trying to witness the phenomenon but, unfortunately, this vigil was interpreted by the police and I ended up in Clerkenwell Magistrates’ Court where police alleged that I was ’vampire hunting’. I was acquitted of this charge (the name of the Magistrate was Mr. Christoper Lea) but the publicity which the case attracted caused interest in Highgate Cemetery to escalate, which in turn, led to a marked increase in vandalism there and gave myself an unwanted reputation as being a ’vampire hunter’.
Happy reading!

Goosestepping with the BNP?

I recently came across Richard Bartholomew's blog entry, "'Master of the Black Arts' to Speak at Springbok Club" which contains a little bit of info on our favourite miscreants.

It's nice to see that despite David's insistence that he does...
not find the ‘feud’ interesting [...] but one-sided, and extremely petty minded on the part of the ONE person who instigates all this nonsense against myself whilst hiding behind aliases
...that Bartholomew recognises their two-sided "sparring" for what it is:
For several decades he [John Pope-de-Locksley -ed.] and his occultist associate David Farrant have been in a feud with Sean Manchester, a bishop of the Old Catholic Church who pops up on TV from time to time with tales of battling vampires and other paranormal manifestations.
According to Bartholomew, the Springbok Club "agitates for the return of white rule over Africa."

The link in the chain here, of course, is John Pope-de-Locksley.

acknowledges him as "an associate of David Farrant". To cement the connection further, Pope-de-Locksley also mentions that he's "head of the junior department of the Highgate Vampire Society", which, of course, was founded and still presided over by Farrant.

Pope-de-Locksley also happens to be the nephew of Bill Binding, a former member of the BNP.

So, what we now have are two Vampire Society figureheads, with possible connections to racist organisations.

In the Bishop's case, I've established that he plagiarises from BNP sources and tries to cover it up through deceptive means.

In David's case, there's a more explicit allegation, as found in the thread on Alexander Lucard's "Vampire Hunter Drama Part 3", left by "Anonymous" (2006-06-02 07:56 am UTC):
What was the significance of the symbol of a rune beneath an eagle on WWP [Wicca Workers Party -ed.] posters circulated by Farrant in the late 1970s? This same rune was being employed at the time by the extremist Column 88 group. It is now used by the BNP youth movement. There are slogans on the posters that bear an uncanny resemblance to Neo-Nazi slogans. Any comments?
To try and untangle this mess, I left a comment on Bartholomew's "'Master of the Black Arts' to Speak at Springbok Club". Let's hope we can solve this mystery.

Is His Title Valid?

There've been many disputes over the validity of the Bishop's title. I'm having a look into the matter, myself.

And already, I've stumbled upon something rather interesting.

The Bishop's Holy Grail Church website contains a link discussing the British Old Catholic Church. I'll get to that a bit later.

Its importance lies in the fact that "The Right Rev’d Seán Manchester, O.S.G." page claims he is the "Presiding Bishop of the traditionalist British Old Catholic Church, Old Catholic Bishop of Glastonbury, and Primate of Ecclesia Apostolica Jesu Christi."

Now, let's get onto that British Old Catholic Church (BOCC) link.

Here's a particular portion of its history that captured my attention:
In England a movement began in 1908 which resulted in the formation of the Old Catholic Church in England. In that year the distinguished English priest, Dr. Arnold Harris Mathew, de jure Earl of Llandoff, who had left the Roman Church, was consecrated by the Archbishop of Utrecht assisted by all the continental Old Catholic Bishops, at the Cathedral Church of Saint Gertrude, Utrecht, on April 28th, and placed in charge of the English mission. On Saint Paul’s Day, 1911, he was elected Archbishop and Metropolitan of Great Britain.
Apart from it being a good starting point for finding out more about the Church, it's also been plagiarised. The same content is found in a link that reproduces "text taken from the 1941 articles written by the Old Catholic brother from New York State."

Don't believe me? Here's an extract from the article. The opening paragraph, in fact:
"In England a movement began in 1908 which resulted in the formation of the Old Catholic Church in England. In that year the distinguished English priest, Dr. Arnold Harris Mathew, de jure Earl of Llandoff, who had left the Roman Church, was consecrated by the Archbishop of Utrecht assisted by all the continental Old Catholic Bishops, at the Cathedral Church of Saint Gertrude, Utrecht, on April 28th, and placed in charge of the English mission. On Saint Paul's Day, 1911, he was elected Archbishop and Metropolitan of Great Britain.
In light of my recent coverage of the Bishop's plagiaristic habits, it's especially startling to see this same practice applied to his church writings.

Keep scrolling down BOCC page from this point, and you'll see that the 1941 article has been blatantly plagiarised - with occasional revisions - right down to the last paragraph.

But it's the last paragraph that stands out most. And it's a doozy.

Here's how the original article ends:
"After Bishop Mathew's death, the small body of Old Catholics in England remained without legitimate Episcopal supervision of their own, and until a short while ago the Church remained in the protection of the Episcopate of the Old Catholic Church in Poland. Now, cut off from their Mother-house by the European War, the English Old Catholics have placed themselves under the jurisdiction of an American Old Catholic Archbishop.
Got that? Now here's how it ends on the BOCC page:
After Bishop Mathew’s death, on December 20th, 1919, the small body of Old Catholics in England remained without legitimate Episcopal supervision of their own, even though the Church remained in the protection of the Episcopate of the Old Catholic Church in Poland. Now, cut off from their Mother-house by the European Wars, English Old Catholics have placed themselves under the jurisdiction of the British Old Catholic Church presided over by the Right Reverend Seán Manchester [emphasis added -ed].
That's right. With a few strokes of the keyboard, history is magically transformed by the Holy Grail Church!

But wait, there's more!

I've Googled other sections of the BOCC page and have come across the rest of the article, which is attributed to "an Old Catholic Benedictine brother who lived in an Old Catholic community in Woodstock, New York." It also mentions that it was "written and published in 1941" (as the other link established) "for a local newspaper, The Catskill Mountain Star."

Have a read through the article, which (unsurprisingly) you'll find has been ripped-off by the BOCC with the Bishop's usual lack of attribution.

Utterly, utterly shameless.

So, is the Bishop's title valid?

Going by these practices, I'd be surprised if it was.
I've been making a coupla queries along those lines to certain authorities, so stay tuned.

But, as I've shown, he's already shown himself capable of historical revisionism. So, if those authorities aren't aware of it, they soon will be!

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.


Related Posts with Thumbnails