Pact with Self-Promotion

Remember when I mentioned the revenue the feud generates between the main parties associated with the Highgate Vampire Case? Here's an example of what I'm talking about.

David's got a new self-published book out called Pact with the Devil. It was released on June 23rd and he's been banging on about it so much, that even he acknowledges that he should give it a rest:

Suppose I’d better do another Blog as the last one is five days old now. Nothing much to say though really, I don’t want to just keep talking about my books.

But, much like his love/hate relationship with vampires, he can't quite bring himself to stop:

Only that the 2nd Vol of my autobiography is well on schedule for October, and, as you know, “Pact with the Devil” has been completed and is now on sale.

He also touches on the revenue angle I've mentioned when he says, "I’m surprised really about the success of that (but pleasantly as I’ve now had quite a few cheques back!)."

Really? Surprised? Surprised at what? That his frequent self-promotion actually paid off? Not like he hasn't engaged in it before. Anyhoo, here's a list of his blog entries that mention the book. Note that some of them even contain self-cross-promotion to other contributions and publications:

• "Highgate Cemetery and Ley Lines?"
• "Barbara, Laura, Jade and Gareth".
• "Thanks Again Everyone".
• "All the News".
• "That's Why I Wrote It".
• "'Pact with the Devil' Unfolds . . ."
• "Pact with the Devil".
• "Here She Is!".
• "Paranormal Cover".

I think you get the drift. And it hasn't just been confined to his blog, either:

To perhaps get away from the highly monotonous irrelevancies sometimes being posted here, just thought it might be relevant to announce that my new book “Pact with the Devil” (which deals with some of the Highgate ‘vampire’ case already referred to here) will be available soon on Amazon, and in most bookshops.

But the funny thing is, not much is said concerning what the book's specifically about. In "That's Why I Wrote It", he mentions that "It does not serve to redress the claims of ‘vampires’ (and other ‘vamp[ire enthusiasts’), just to set the record straight, that’s all."

His latest blog entry, "Suppose I'd Better . . ." (which I quoted from near the start of this entry) states

a lot of people were given a mass of mis-information on the Internet in 2007 (and since) and they want to know what really happened. I don’t intend to go into all the ‘ins and outs’ of the book here, except to say it only tells the truth about things that really happened.

These vague allusions are Dave's stock-in-trade. I mean, what mis-information? Also, if it was posted on the 'net, why didn't he address it there? He's got his blog and website to do so.

The book's Amazon listings aren't helpful either. They don't even have product descriptions (see: Amazon and Amazon.co.uk). However, they do reveal that the "book" is a mere 52 pages long and on sale for £5.95.

To clear up this mystery, I decided to ask David himself. Here's what I posted on "Suppose I'd Better . . .":


As a self-professed doyen of free speech, surely Dave'll take the time to answer my query. He wouldn't do something as silly as censor my comment, would he?

That remains to be seen.

What Would St. Bonaventure Do?

In the previous post, I openly wondered if the Bishop was too busy on his birthday to write up a sermon of his own, instead of pinching one from elsewhere.

I decided to do the decent thing and ask the Bishop himself. Here's the comment I wrote on "his" St. Bonaventure sermon:

Hiya Bishop,

Were you too busy with birthday stuff to write your own sermon? I see you've cribbed this one from the Doctors of the Catholic Church's "St. Bonaventure" page.

I guess all that stuff about "truth" and "humility" went over your head, eh? Heh heh.

Unfortunately, the only record you'll have of it is my quote, as the comment's pending approval.


And I say "unfortunately" because if my online interactions with the Bishop have taught me anything, it's that he can be rather censorious and, let's say, selective in interpreting my comments. And by selective, I mean encouraging the idea that I'm an anti-Catholic homosexual (even though I'm neither) because I have the audacity to directly address the Bishop about his plagiaristic ways.

So, we'll see how this one pans out.

Bishop Steals a Sermon

In the previous entry, I alluded to dodgy practices by the main parties of the Highgate Vampire Case. One of them is plagiarism, and the following dissection will show you how ludicrous it can get.

To commemorate the Feast of St. Bonaventure (July 15), the Bishop decided to write a sermon on his blog, The Truth Shall Set You Free. Here's a snippet:

For some, it is not easy to be one's true self. We would like to be our true self. However, many of us, and we won't admit it, wear a mask and act contrary to the way God would have us act due to weakness and sin.

Hmm, yes, wise words indeed. It's just a shame that nowhere in the blog entry does he reveal a sense of irony or the source of "his" sermon. There's no references, no citations and his name appears as its author.

See what I mean.

How do I know it came from somewhere else? Simple. We know the Bishop has a history of plagiarism (and getting nasty when it's exposed). Also, all you have to do is Google a few lines of his "sermon" to see it where it came from. That's how I turned up Doctors of the Catholic Church's "St. Bonaventure" page. Here's an extract:

For some, it is not easy to be one's true self. We would like to be our true self. However, many of us, and we won't admit it, wear a mask and act contrary to the way God would have us act due to weakness and sin.

Sound familiar? Thought so. How about we do another comparison, just to make sure it's not a fluke. Here's another snippet from the Bishop's sermon:

Our Franciscan doctor encouraged others in his lifetime and encourages us today to have a sincere spirit of humility, devotion and repentance. We need to practice these God-given qualities. Humility is a part of truth. Sound devotion is the earnest searching after God. Contrition, conversion and repentance means sorrow for past sins. We have committed egregious wrongs and have need of God's mercy.

And over to Doctors of the Catholic Church:

Our Franciscan doctor encouraged others in his lifetime and encourages us today to have a sincere spirit of humility, devotion and repentance. We need to practice these God-given qualities. Humility is a part of truth. Sound devotion is the earnest searching after God. Contrition, conversion and repentance means sorrow for past sins. We have committed egregious wrongs and have need of God's mercy.

A real shame that the Bishop doesn't practice what he preaches/pinches from elsewhere. I would've liked to point out where "his" sermon significantly departs from the source he stole it from, but as you can see, that's kinda pointless.

Maybe the Bishop was too busy to write his own sermon that day? After all, it was his 66th birthday! Happy birthday, Bishop!

Extract from International Who's Who of Authors and Writers 2004 (2003), p. 366.

Not that it's an excuse, mind you. I mean, in the time it took to crib all that text from the Doctors of the Catholic Church website, he could've just linked to it. Doesn't take long. Could've at least prefaced it with "Can't be bothered writing my own sermon, today. Got me some partyin' to do! So, here's someone else's and Happy Bonaventure Day to y'all! TTYL!"

But it does make me wonder: if the Bishop can't even be bothered writing his own sermons online, then does he steal sermons from others for his Sunday services, too? Do his parishioners know their eminent leader is a shameless plagiarist?

An Overhaul and a Manifesto

After mucking about with my other blog's layout, I decided to do the same for this one, too, to make it look a bit more spiffy.

It's certainly been a while since I've done so. Here's what it looked like until today:

I also did something I've been avoiding for a long time: I've linked each of my blogs to the other. There's a clearcut reason for why I haven't done so till now.

As I mentioned in "Public Service Announcement", discussing the Highgate Vampire can attract unwanted attention. The allusion, of course, was to VRS and HVS associates and affiliates. Here's an example of the kind of idiocy I've had to deal with.

So, I've been keeping both worlds separate, as I see my vampires studies as (for want of a better term) more serious, albeit entertaining, than my forays into the Highgate Vampire Case, which is sort of a sideline hobby.

How can I label "vampire studies" as "serious" over the Highgate Vampire, when both involve dealing with the undead? Simple. I know vampires aren't real. I enjoy reading about them in a fictional or folkloric context. The Highgate Vampire Case is presented as a real event by its main participants (even if it's occasionally revised to be a "psychic entity"), but, quite frankly, there's just too much hokum involved in it to make it believable in any sense.

Its main promoters, Dave and Sean, and their "fans", have done little to dispel this notion, as attested during the course of this blog's existence and frequent exposés. Nonetheless, they take it seriously enough (probably cos it's pretty much the oxygen that keeps their fame alive and helps generate an income for 'em) to engage in some rather dubious practices. That's why I wrote the "Public Service Announcement" in the first place.

But, y'know what? I'm proud of the work I've done for this blog. I shouldn't have to keep it "hidden". I think it should be read by more people. Despite my stance on the matter, I don't begrudge those who do believe something spooky went down in the Cemetery. That's their choice to make. They don't have to agree with what I write and I'm certainly open to discussions on the matter. I've been doing so over at my Facebook group, which you're free to join.

On my part, I've made no money off my endeavors, nor do I intend to. The information I share is freely accessible. That's because most of it's online. Whether you consider that to be a legitimate resource should be buoyed by the fact that a lot of the writings in question are primary sources. That's right: stuff right out of the mouths (keyboards, really) of VRS and HVS presidents, founders, associates and fans.

But in doing so, it means I've had to put up with a lotta crap. In fact, at various intervals, I've been accused of being on either side of the party. Neutrality is not something generally appreciated in this Case. It seems you gotta bat for one team or the other.

I think that's a preposterous expectation.

Especially considering that we're dealing with a Case that involves bloodsucking undead corpses and disembodied psychic entities sapping away at your lifeforce. Depending on who you ask. It's even been able to generate a feud (and revenue) that has been going on for about 40 years (the Case went public in 1970, after all).

The main parties presenting their claims are clearly as dodgy as the other. My advice to people who express doubt for both sides, but still find themselves siding with one over the other, is that's it's like picking the lesser of two snakeoil salesmen: why would you choose either one?

Again, as harsh that might sound, I'll emphasise again, that I'm still open to discussions on the topic. I can't not make you believe in the Highgate Vampire (or Entity). That's up to you. I only ask that you be open-minded enough to consider the evidence on hand and to share your own thoughts and views on the subject. Who knows what we might learn.

Fighting Vampires with Vampires

Earlier this year, I wrote about David's disdain of vampires. More specifically, their association with the Highgate Vampire Case. Here's a snippet:

As to your quip . . . “Without the Highgate vampire case they wouldn’t be talking here at all”, etc, I rather think that relates more to yourself Anthony! You seem unable to talk about little else; notwithstanding its 40-year old history! It is YOURSELF who keeps incessantly referring to this case Anthony – almost like you’ve got some sort of obsession with it!

The vampire angle is something that he's been trying to whitewash for years, despite using it to further his own attention-seeking ends. Harsh? Well, here's proof. Want more? Scroll through the titles on his booklist.

And then there's this doozy from my "interview" with him last year:

DAWWIH?: Why is it that after the court case, you allowed yourself to be filmed in a television news article reconstructing your patrols for the vampire with a stake and cross? You also did the same thing for an article with Barrie Simmons. If you say the press labeled you with a "vampire hunter" tag, then why did you give demonstrations of stalking vampires in Highgate Cemetery to other members of the press?

DF: Why not? It was what the Press and television wanted.

Now, getting back to that vampire thang, you know, the one I have an "obsession" with, and that I like keeping its "40-year old history" alive. Yep, looks like I've got a contender!

And just who is this contender, you might be asking? Why, look no further than Dave's blog!

It seems interest in my film on the Highgate ‘vampire’ is still very active; which is why, I guess, the Producers want to add more footage. I hope they do, because all I’m doing is relating that whole story as it actually happened. NOT what other people may have been led to believe what ‘happened’, but as events really took place in actual reality. (They had nothing whatsoever to do with ‘blood-sucking vampires!). Most of such reports just amount to pure fiction and imagination and THEY JUST DIDN’T HAPPEN! (Except in the mind’s of a very few misguided individuals, that is).

Yeah, he's still banging that same old drum. One that seems, strangely enough, to exist independently of myself!

Oh, and he's heaps more fuel onto the feud fire, one of the other things keeping this thing alive:

My new book “Pact with the Devil”, is now ready for distribution, and I hope that will serve to clear some of the mysteries in the ‘puzzle’. It does not serve to redress the claims of ‘vampires’ (and other ‘vamp[ire enthusiasts’), just to set the record straight, that’s all.

It's somewhat ironic that the guy who repeatedly shuns the bloodsucking vampire variant, has pretty much built his, ahem, "career" off it. In fact, come to think of it, his very livelihood seems to be built on vampires and feuding. Hell, he even called his bloody autobiography, In the Shadow of the Highgate Vampire.

Looks like the vampires got him after all.

Oh, and did you notice I was rather specific about him shunning the "bloodsucking vampire variant"? You see, the biggest joke of all is, that it's not that Dave doesn't believe in vampires, it's just that he doesn't believe in the classic bloodsucking-corpse variety.

I mean, come on, how preposterous are they? You'd have to be a total buffoon to believe in something like that!

Everyone knows they suck psychic energy instead!