Alexander Lucard ([info]alexlucard) wrote,
@ 2005-05-11 09:48:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Edit Entry  Edit Tags  Next Entry
Vampire Hunter Drama Part 3
http://www.livejournal.com/users/alexlucard/840004.html#cutid1 is part two, and there's a link in there to part one.

Anyway, the arch rival of Sean Manchester, the guy who has been annoying me since I was a teenager and the subject of the last two posts on the subject has emailed me as of last night. This guy has a criminal record a mile long, from digging up corpses and violating them on down.

But at least he's more eloquent in his madness than Machester. here's David Farrant's email to me.




Dear Alex Lucard
I was most intrigued by all your comments here about the so-called Highgate Vampire; not least about myself being a 'vampire hunter'! It would appear that you arrive at most of your conclusions about the Highgate Case and myself from sensational accounts you have gleaned from the internet the problem is however that almost invariably, most of this inaccurate sensationalism as been posted up by Mr Sean Manchester himself (Please note he is NOT a genuing bishop) and if you check back on these accounts you will see that I have only been forced to correct unfounded public allegations made by Mr Manchester himself - albeit frequently hiding behind his usual aliases.

It is not my intention to argue against all the points you have recently made on the insidepulse website, as I appreciate you, like anybody else are entitled to personal opinions (however wrong or misguided these have proved to be in your particular case).

I will just say one thing however, to set the record straight for you - ... I am NOT a 'vampire hunter', in reality I am just a psychic investigator and I do not even accept the existence of 'blood sucking vampires'. Mr Manchester apparently does (as he has publically stated in his self-published book The Highgate Vampire), but that is really his problem! In passing, I can conclude by saying that my non-acceptance of Mr Manchester's ridiculous public claims he makes about 'vampires', has been the main reason for his campaign of hatred against members of The British Psychic and Occult Society and myself.

Yours Sincerely
David Farrant
President BPOS.

NB: In the event that you might be interested my main website can be found at http://www.dfarrant.co.uk also could I refer you to Occult Forums International Vampire Thread, Off Topic Occult. The link is http://www.occultforums.com from which Mr Manchester has just been publically banned (within the last 3 or 4 days or so.


SHUTUPSHUTUPSHUTUP! Sigh. My email to him

Ummm...Dave? That column you read of mine was me printing the whack job hilarious emails Manchester sent me. Re-read the column. Those are his words, not mine with me making fun of him at the end.

It was in reference to the column I wrote back in Jan '05 (http://www.insidepulse.com/article.php?contentid=31102) where I recanted the entire Highgate vampire saga.

I know Manchester very well. And by that I mean, I know him by reputation very well, as he's been the butt of American folklorists and parapsychologists for as long as I can remember. Norrine Dresser, Paul barber, Carol Page. All of us snicker quite profusely at the whole "Highgate Vampire" incident.

I'll tell you what I told Manchester: Stop acting like children. Both of you. This happened 30 years ago. My god, both of you are old enough to be at retirement age soon and you're carrying on like schoolchildren about an event maybe 5% of the world remembers and only a fraction thereof even cares that it occured.

All your sniping between the two of you does makes you both look foolish and foppish. Like attention whores deserpately clinging to some sort of public limelight when one of you just needs to start completely ignoring the other. I don't care if he starts it, or is just really good at getting your goat, because the end result is STILL the two of you bickering of the world wide web. Please stop.

-Lucard


Page 2 of 3
<<[1] [2] [3] >>

(Post a new comment)


[info]blogtard
2006-06-02 08:24 pm UTC (from 64.230.61.76) (link) DeleteFreezeScreen
My cat's breathe smells like catfood.

(Reply to this)

SEAN'S PICTURES - THE TRUTH (PWNED!!!111)
(Anonymous)
2006-06-02 08:59 pm UTC (from 82.18.10.226) (link) DeleteFreezeScreen
At last, although you'll have to click reply to see them.

Sean...you thought it wasn't possible.
You haven't seen them for years.

I'm proud to re-unite you, with your shameless past.
Now go an steady your aging ricket wriddled frame, you fat, balding, cockless neuter pensioner.


Image
Image
Image


Archbishop Shórñ Scrotum

(Reply to this)(Thread)

Re: SEAN'S PICTURES - THE TRUTH (PWNED!!!111) - (Anonymous), 2006-06-02 09:28 pm UTC
Re: SEAN'S PICTURES - THE TRUTH (PWNED!!!111) - (Anonymous), 2006-06-02 09:38 pm UTC
Re: SEAN'S PICTURES - THE TRUTH (PWNED!!!111) - (Anonymous), 2006-06-03 12:25 am UTC
Re: SEAN'S PICTURES - THE TRUTH (PWNED!!!111) - (Anonymous), 2006-06-03 07:38 am UTC
Re: SEAN'S PICTURES - THE TRUTH (PWNED!!!111) - (Anonymous), 2006-06-03 08:55 am UTC
Re: FARRANT'S BLACK MAGIC TELEPHONE THREATS - (Anonymous), 2006-06-05 11:42 am UTC
Re: Threatening to violate the Data Protection Act of 1988 now? - (Anonymous), 2006-06-05 12:12 pm UTC
Re: Threatening to violate the Data Protection Act of 1988 now? - (Anonymous), 2006-06-05 01:14 pm UTC
Re: Threatening to violate the Data Protection Act of 1988 now? - (Anonymous), 2006-06-05 02:56 pm UTC
Re: Threatening to violate the Data Protection Act of 1988 now? - (Anonymous), 2006-06-05 05:40 pm UTC
Running Scared - (Anonymous), 2006-06-05 04:13 pm UTC
Re: BRADISH AND FARRANT - THE TRUTH - (Anonymous), 2006-06-03 04:11 pm UTC
its gone dickipoggy
(Anonymous)
2006-06-03 12:40 pm UTC (from 82.38.130.19) (link) DeleteFreezeScreen
I don't think it will take long for Bishop Spongebag Squarepants to spontaneously combust!

(Reply to this)(Thread)

Re: its gone dickipoggy - (Anonymous), 2006-06-05 02:58 pm UTC
Why not put the Bradish matter to the test?
(Anonymous)
2006-06-03 04:20 pm UTC (from 195.92.67.76) (link) DeleteFreezeScreen
"I have agreed to answer your question about whether or not I made threanening ’black magic’ telephone calls to housewife Mrs. Gillian Bradish back in 1970. But you have not yet agreed to answer my question to yourself, Mr. Manchester i.e. DID YOU OR DID YOU NOT SEND TWO LETTERS TO MR. JOHN BRADISH THREATENING HIM WITH ’BLACK MAGIC’ IF HE DID NOT REVOKE MY BAIL?" (DAVID FARRANT - 2006-05-17)

Farrant knows very well that it was the bishop's spokesperson five years ago who (a) suggested a lie detector test and (b) made the Bradish case central to the questions to be asked.

Bishop Manchester made no telephone calls to Gillian Bradish, black magic or otherwise, threatening or otherwise. In fact, he didn't know Mrs Bradish and wouldn't have known her telephone number.

Farrant did know Mrs Bradish and had just become her lodger when he made those calls. Farrant bore resentment against her husband and, of course, against the bishop. So he thought you would kill two birds with one stone by making threatening calls and influencing the couple who gave him somewhere to live as a condition of his bail.

Farrant persuaded them that it was the president of the British Occult Society who was responsible for the calls. Sadly, they didn't think it through enough at the time. This sent Mr Bradish chasing down to the BOS offices and assaulting Bishop Manchester. Mr Bradish was convicted of assault on the bishop and the motive for the assault was offered as the black magic telephone threats which, at first, the bishop believed to be an invention until he saw Farrant in the public gallery of the court with a big grin all over his face and later heard about his boasts in pubs - boasts of having set Bishop Manchester up by making the calls himself to the Bradish household.

Farrant's motive for doing this was the belief he held that Mr Bradish had made advances toward his then wife, Mary, at a time when they were still living together at the flat from which Farrant was eventually evicted in 1969. Farrant's wife apparently told him as much and he shared this information with various people, including Tony Hutchinson who also heard Farrant bragging about making the telephone threats after the court case in 1970.

It has always been clear that no questions are off limits where the Bradish case is concerned. So, of course, Bishop Manchester would deal with all questions related to this matter. The bishop obviously did not send these letters and would have not known where Mr Bradish lived. Mr and Mrs Bradish were acquaintances of Farrant's. They belonged to Farrant's circle. Bishop Manchester did not know them.

There is no need to discuss this any further. Farrant has always known that those who support the bishop have been trying to get him to agree to a lie detector test for a number of years. The bishop has made no qualification except that he does not want the press involved beforehand so that Farrant can extract maximum publicity out of what might again turn out to be a non-event.

The test itself is what is important. Not the circus surrounding it or preceding it.

Just as the message is what is important here. Not the messenger.

Farrant knows how to contact Bishop Manchester. If he wants to discuss these matters further that is what you should do.

(Reply to this)

David Farrant - Liar, Fraud and Interloper
(Anonymous)
2006-06-03 04:33 pm UTC (from 195.92.67.76) (link) DeleteFreezeScreen
Farrant appeared at Clerkenwell Court in August 1970 where he was charged with being in an enclosed area for an unlawful purpose. Defending solictor Mr Jeffrey Bayes pointed out that Highgate Cemetery cannot be described as "an enclosed area." This technicality secured Farrant's release in 1970. However, we should also remind ourselves of what the magistrate, Mr J D Purcell, said when Farrant appeared before him whilst on remand at Brixton prison: "You should be seen by a doctor."

BBC "24 Hours" (15 October 1970) invited Farrant to make a contribution due to his arrest on the night of 17 August 1970 when police discovered him prowling about in Highgate Cemetery with a crudely made cross and a stake.

What Farrant reconstructed for the BBC television programme showed him going through the actions of "stalking a vampire" at the time of his co-ordinated arrest. This footage was in relation to why he was arrested and nothing else. The programme itself was titled "Vampires" and when asked about his "vampire hunting" Farrant, of course, did not say, "I don't believe in vampires," far from it; he went along with the notion he had given to all and sundry that he was in the graveyard to try and impale the Highgate Vampire.

On the day after the BBC transmission, Farrant appeared in a newspaper which showed photographs of him supposedly stalking a vampire with his cross and stake late at night in Highgate Cemetery. Barrie Simmons, the newspaper's journalist, joined Farrant for a "midnight date with Highgate's Vampire" as recorded in the London Evening News, 16 October 1970:

"I joined a macabre hunt among the desecrated graves and tombs for the vampire of Highgate Cemetery. ... David Farrant, 24, was all set, kitted out with all the gear required by any self-respecting vampire hunter. Clutched under his arm, in a Sainsbury's carrier bag, he held the tools of his trade. There was a cross made out of two bits of wood tied together with a shoelace and a stake to plunge through the heart of the beast. Vampire hunting is a great art. There is no point in just standing around waiting for the monster to appear. It must be stalked. So we stalked. Cross in one hand to ward off the evil spirits, stake in the other, held at the ready. Farrant stalked among the vaults, past the graves, in the bushes and by the walls. When we had finished he started stalking all over again."

In 1987, however, Farrant admitted to being responsible for a "hoax." The newspaper in question was the Finchley Advertiser which on 30 July 1987 (based on an interview with Farrant) claimed that he started "rumours of a vampiric haunting" in 1970 (which we know is not true) concluding with these words: "Mr Farrant supported the vampire theory in the local and national press, but now concedes the idea was 'just pure fiction'."

We do not have to take the Finchley Advertiser's word for it, of course, or even Farrant's word; we have the archive photographs of him stalking the vampire with his rosary, crucifix, holy water, large cross and sharpened wooden stake. We have the taped interviews that Farrant so kindly provided at the time. And, finally, we have the BBC television footage of Farrant reconstucting his lone vampire hunt which led to his arrest by police on the night of 17 August 1970.

Farrant's part in the vampire saga was an elaborate hoax purely for the sake of his own self-aggrandisement, but that does not mean that others investigating the phenonemon from as far back as early 1967 (a time when Farrant was not even resident in the UK) were anything other than genuine.

Farrant slowly began to fraudulently adopt the nomenclature of the British Occult Society as his own, which was hotly denied by the Society itself. When Farrant appeared at the Old Bailey in 1974 he still described himself this way. Hence court proceedings were quoted with the prefix “self-styled” by newspaper editors and media journalists. In 1983, however, Farrant decided to amend the usurped name to “British Psychic and Occult Society.” He had spoken to the press about his “thousands of followers” (Hornsey Journal, 23 November 1979), and even went so far as to claim a number as high as 20,000 (Finchley Press, 22 February 1980).

(Reply to this)(Thread)

Re: Sean Manchaser - Pimp, Failure and Genital Warts Sufferer - (Anonymous), 2006-06-03 05:11 pm UTC
Re: David Farrant - Liar, Fraud and Interloper - (Anonymous), 2006-06-03 05:40 pm UTC
Re: David Farrant - Liar, Fraud and Interloper - (Anonymous), 2006-06-04 08:57 am UTC
Gareth Medway's / David Farrant's Fabrications Should Be Put To The Test
(Anonymous)
2006-06-03 04:42 pm UTC (from 195.92.67.76) (link) DeleteFreezeScreen
Gareth Meday / David Farrant alleges that Bishop Manchester was "expelled from the National Front" etc.

Where is the evidence for that statement?

Where is the evidence that Bishop Manchester has ever been a member of any political party, much less the National Front?

This is fabricated nonsense originating with David Farrant.

Let's put it to the test. Let's see some evidence that Bishop Manchester ever held membership in any political party at any time in his entire life. So far all we have is Farrant's word and that is surely not good enough. He has been found to be a compulsive liar by judges and juries in the past. If the bishop ever help NF (or any other) membership there will be a record of it somewhere. Someone would know about it. There is no record and nobody does know about it because it is all lies.

It was not Bishop Manchester who threatened to stand as a WWP candidate at the 1978 General Election on a platform that might well have been that belonging to the National Socialist Party. It was Farrant.

It was not Bishop Manchester who claimed in the press that he had amalgamated with other political parties, eg the National Front. It was Farrant.

It was not Bishop Manchester who used Neo-Nazi runes as logos on his circulars. It was Farrant.

It was not Bishop Manchester who cultivated Neo-Nazi acquaintances as friends and supporters. It was Farrant.



(Reply to this)(Thread)

Here's Your Proof Sean - (Anonymous), 2006-06-03 06:17 pm UTC
Re: Gareth Medway's / David Farrant's Fabrications Should Be Put To The Test - (Anonymous), 2006-06-03 07:11 pm UTC
Re: Gareth Medway's / David Farrant's Fabrications Should Be Put To The Test - (Anonymous), 2006-06-04 09:00 am UTC
Re: Gareth Medway's / David Farrant's Fabrications Should Be Put To The Test - (Anonymous), 2006-06-05 03:07 pm UTC
Re: Gareth Medway's / David Farrant's Fabrications Should Be Put To The Test - [info]alexlucard, 2006-06-05 03:31 pm UTC
Sean Admits Guilt - Part II
(Anonymous)
2006-06-03 08:24 pm UTC (from 82.18.10.226) (link) DeleteFreezeScreen
Sean, how can you say it's not you in the Nazi picture?
If you want to trace IP numbers and take people to court, be my guest.
The photo's are public domain.

Why would you even consider taking something down the legal route if you have nothing to do with the content of the picture?

If you claiming intellectual copyright ownership of the pictures, then you are admitting your guilt by association.
Therefore, the pictures are truthful and I'm sure the tabloids would love to hear how you tried to prosecute over public content for content that you deny to be you.

Amazing bit of genius work there Sean.
I may as well just hand you a little more rope as you are already building your own gallows!!!


Association with Nazi/Satanist pictures is all we need to prove it's you...besides, check out the ears.
They are definately your jug ears Sean.


Funny how you can afford to waste time on it yet you still refuse to do a live phone in you gutless balding racist turd.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

Re: Sean Admits Guilt - Part II - (Anonymous), 2006-06-04 06:54 am UTC
David Farrant made a career out of making Black Magic threats to all and sundry ...
(Anonymous)
2006-06-04 09:03 am UTC (from 195.92.67.69) (link) DeleteFreezeScreen
"With a shrug of the shoulders [David Farrant] admitted mercislessly pursuing grievances." (Sue Kentish, News of the World, 23 September 1973)

"[David Farrant] sensationally admitted to sending the dolls, with pins through their heads and accompanying poems, in a desperate 'leave me alone to continue my work' bid. Inspector John Tressider of the RSPCA received his package direct and Mrs Wilson's 'gift' was sent to Journal reporter Roger Simpson for forwarding." (Hornsey Journal, 28 September 1973)

"Rock singer Long John Baldry admits to being worried when he got two packages through the post containing miniature coffins with his name written on them, said to have come from Farrant." (George Hunter & Richard Wright, Daily Express, 26 June 1974)

"In the first trial [David Farrant] bragged he would be cleared because three members of the jury were frightened of his powers. The jury convicted him on two of five charges. In his final trial he was said to have sent clay effigies to Detective Constable Michael Westmore and Detective Constable David Reid to stop them giving evidence against a member of his coven, John Russell Pope, who faced a sex charge." (Michael Fielder, The Sun, 4 July 1974)

"Farrant said: 'No clergy in this country will ever marry me. Not only have I been divorced, but the church has always attacked me for things I've been involved in.' Those things include ritual blood sacrifices using cats, casting voodoo spells, hunting vampires in London's Highgate Cemetery, and holding nude ceremonies." (Frank Thorne, Sunday People, 16 April 1978)

Gillian Bradish suffered from serious mental illness before, during and after the 1970 court case where she made the black magic allegations. She had been under psychiatric observation for some due to her paranoid schizophrenic and depressed state. Farrant obviously knew this and preyed upon this fact when he sought to have his revenge against her husband (who he believed had made advances towards his wife before their separation) and Bishop Manchester (who had dismissed Farrant's media claims regarding his pursuit of the Highgate Vampire as bogus and transparent attention-seeking). Sadly, Mrs Bradish eventually committed suicide, but not before realising soon after the court case that Farrant was the real culprit. Her husband was likewise in absolutely no doubt that Farrant was responsible for the malicious telephone calls, having also reached that realisation soon afterwards. It did not take a genius to work it out even without Farrant boasting to his drinking partners immediately following the case that he had set Bishop Manchester up by making the calls himself. The bishop did not know the couple, did not know their address and could not have known their telephone number which was revealed to be ex-directory. Farrant did, of course, and, moreover, had just become their lodger, albeit not for long.

Should a professionally executed lie detector test become available, Bishop Manchester would agree to taking it unilaterally on this single issue because he feels it is at the root of the feud. Farrant will not take the test even if he claimed otherwise beforehand. In that most unlikely event, however, the bishop would insist on the following question being directed to Farrant and also to himself: "Did you you make the black magic telephone threats to Mrs Gillian Bradish?"

(Reply to this)

The SeanGate Tapes
(Anonymous)
2006-06-04 08:08 pm UTC (from 81.77.107.1) (link) DeleteFreezeScreen

WHERE’S MY SUBPOENA!?

IN THE LATE 1970’S/ early 1980’s, Manchester was visiting me regularly at my flat near Highgate, in North London; the main purpose for his visits, to keep up to date with events at the time; especially the progress of two libel actions I had in motion then against the Daily Express and the News Of The World. The first of these actions was against the Daily Express and was heard in 1979; the second (against the NOW) was concluded in 1980. Manchester obviously learned about the result of my libel case against the Daily Express as this got into the national press and was discussed on an evening TV chat show, but he said he had a fantastic idea to get publicity out of the then pending case against the News Of the World … by calling him as a witness! He said he could never be seen to turn up voluntarily, but that I could subpoena him over the Highgate vampire business; that way, he said, he could give evidence on the ‘vampire’ but as a ‘hostile witness’ (by virtue of being subpoenaed) he would stick to that only, and he stressed that he would not be hostile against myself. He said he could summon the media and then arrive at the High Court and emerge from a coffin in a hearse drawn by four black horses!

Obviously I did not trust Manchester’s motivations; in particular, his promise that he would not be ‘hostile’ to myself once he was in the witness box. But I pretended to go along with his idea; mainly to prevent him from otherwise contacting the media with his own hidden agenda.

As it transpired, the case was over before Manchester even learned about the result from the local press…

SEAN MANCHESTER … What I want to know is, where’s my subpoena? … Where’s my subpoena?!

DAVID FARRANT … (Laughs)

SM … Where’s my subpoena?! (Pause) What I don’t understand is, why you don’t trust me?

DF: (Laughs aloud)

SM: Why is it that you don’t trust me? You obviously don’t trust me!… I mean you must regard our present level of co-operation over the past months, or a year (I don’t know) has been the best level of co-operation you could achieve between us … I mean we’ve never been at a better level of co-operation…

DF: Oh year. I know that but …

SM: So why did you blow your case completely? Why did you blow it?

DF: Oh! I was waiting for you to mention that …

SM: I mean why? We agreed that we were going to do a scene. I mean, you got so little out of it… I mean fifty quid…

DF: Yeah. But I got the costs, you know …

SM: You mean, in terms of cash; you mean, you haven’t actually got to pay the costs…

DF: No. I got the costs; it’ll be about £4000. But that’s going back over three years.

SM: Well, all I can say …

DF: That’s on the level …

SM: Well, all I can say is that in terms of publicity, you got very little. You got two paragraphs - one in the Ham and High, one in the Hornsey Journal, which is negligible. You’d get more if you were arrested for dropping pigeon shit on the ground.

DF: (Laughs)

SM: You would. And … And, you know, even Time Out haven’t touched it, which is quite incredible I think. So publicity wise, it’s dead; money wise, well, you’re well fifty quid - which isn’t really a great deal, against £20000. It’s a shame, but the biggest thing that I can’t understand is… why…you know, have I been wasting my time discussing a possible stunt which is going to attract a lot of publicity? (Pauses) I tell you, if we’d have done what I thought we were co-operating to do, you’d have received national coverage…

DF: Yeah. I know. I know…

SM: I was going to hire a hearse with four horses, and a coffin and everything …

DF: Well; I don’t know. You know. I think the thing was so dead … I really think that were not going to publish it anyway. I really think that they closed ranks on it.

SM: Well, there was nothing to publish. There was nothing to publicise really. Four days isn’t a very long period. But I wonder, what on earth possessed you to go alone ?

To Be Continued…

This article first appeared in David Farrant's book, The SeanGate Tapes which was published in 2005 [ISSN 1747-7077], and of course this is in the public domain.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

Re: TALES FROM THE CRYPT - (Anonymous), 2006-06-05 10:32 am UTC
bible Quotes
(Anonymous)
2006-06-04 10:58 pm UTC (from 81.77.107.1) (link) DeleteFreezeScreen
Holy Gospel of Jesus Christ according to Saint Mark 12,1-12.

He began to speak to them in parables. "A man planted a vineyard, put a hedge around it, dug a wine press, and built a tower. Then he leased it to tenant farmers and left on a journey. At the proper time he sent a servant to the tenants to obtain from them some of the produce of the vineyard. But they seized him, beat him, and sent him away empty-handed. Again he sent them another servant. And that one they beat over the head and treated shamefully. He sent yet another whom they killed. So, too, many others; some they beat, others they killed. He had one other to send, a beloved son. He sent him to them last of all, thinking, 'They will respect my son.' But those tenants said to one another, 'This is the heir. Come, let us kill him, and the inheritance will be ours.' So they seized him and killed him, and threw him out of the vineyard. What (then) will the owner of the vineyard do? He will come, put the tenants to death, and give the vineyard to others. Have you not read this scripture passage: 'The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone; by the Lord has this been done, and it is wonderful in our eyes'?" They were seeking to arrest him, but they feared the crowd, for they realized that he had addressed the parable to them. So they left him and went away.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

Re: bible Quotes - (Anonymous), 2006-06-05 05:24 am UTC
Twisted Logic To Fit Farrant's Agenda Exposed
(Anonymous)
2006-06-05 08:32 am UTC (from 195.92.67.76) (link) DeleteFreezeScreen
"Let me draw your attention to the following. Sean [Manchester] said: 'John Pope continued with his Neo-Nazi involvements and more recently published a piece in the journal of the south-western branch of the National Front.' Sean [Manchester], you complete half wit. Seeing as John Pope is such a non-entity, there are only two ways you could possibly know about this. 1) YOU ARE IN TOUCH WITH JOHN POPE. 2) YOU ARE SUBSCRIBING TO NF AND ANTI-SEMETIC [sic] LITERATURE. THERE IS NO OTHER WAY YOU COULD KNOW THAT POPE IS WRITING FOR THE NF."


John Pope made known and published the fact himself. It was further disseminated on the internet by one of his associates who is also a Farrant associate; someone who has collaborated in the past with Farrant's pamphlets; someone who helped publish one of them, or, at least, provided his council flat address in London's East End as the publishing address.

Seán Manchester has no interest in political parties and has at no time in his life been a member of one. Furthermore, no evidence has been produced to suggest anything to the contrary. The Sunday People "spoiler" certainly does not suggest that he was a member of any party, nor does it suggest he was a Nazi.

Malicious allegations to the effect that he was an NF member and canvassed for them stem exclusively from David Farrant; the same David Farrant who attempted to stand as a far right WWP candidate in the 1978 British General Election; the same David Farrant who recommended that any potential voters should switch to the NF when he stood down; the same David Farrant who has sought and received support from Nazi-minded individuals with far right associations to attack Seán Manchester.

(Reply to this)

More Twisted Logic And Fabrication From Farrant
(Anonymous)
2006-06-05 08:53 am UTC (from 195.92.67.76) (link) DeleteFreezeScreen
"In Court in 1970, Mrs. Gillian Bradish said that she recognised your voice on the telephone when you made your vile threats as she had fequently heard you yalking in company in a pub. You said (in Court) that you couldn’t have phoned her as her telephone number was ex-directory! (This is a main point which led to you being held responsible for the phone calls0. If you hadn’t previously tried to telephone her, then how would you even know that her number was ex-directory? And another thing. You said you were later paid compensation by the Court for this. This is an outright lie. YOU WERE NOT. Where is your hard evidence to back up this statement? Please either refer us to it, or produce it here. DAVID FARRANT."

I am not Seán Manchester but have known him long enough and am closely enough associated with him to be able to address Farrant's libel.

Mrs Bradish was put on the spot by the prosecuting lawyer when he asked how she knew who made the telephone calls. In the following year she accepted that she had been wrong and now believed it was Farrant who made the calls. The fact is that until the trial Seán Manchester had never spoken nor met Mrs Bradish. There was no meetings in pubs or hearing voives in pubs. This is pure fabrication from Farrant. How could she possibly have recognised Seán Manchester's voice when she had made no contact with him until the day of the case?

Seán Manchester was informed by Tony Hutchinson (in whose cellar Farrant had been residing from August 1969 until August 1970) that the Bradish telephone number was ex-directory. Hutchinson was aware of Mr & Mrs Bradish and had spoken to them on various occasions in pubs. Seán Manchester, however, had not. This information was not solicited. It was revealed in a conversation along with much else about the Bradish situation. Hutchinson was a potential witness for the prosecution in the Bradish case but didn't want to get involved and would have therefore been a hostile witness if summoned.

Compensation was paid to Seán Manchester by the Criminal Compensation Board. Documents remain in the archive to support this. They will be evoked as and when necessary. There have been many libellous statements made about Seán Manchester and his wife on this website. There has also been copyright infringement. These issues are now under investigation. Even though the name and address of the website owner is known, the main culprit's name and address for uploading these offences remains anonymous. But hopefully not for long.

The newspaper report about the Bradish case is also in error. The newspaper in question was taken to the Press Council by Seán Manchester for inaccurate and unbalanced reporting. Seán Manchester's complaint was upheld and the newspaper was obliged to publish an apologetic retraction with balancing comment on its front page. Such information will always be withheld by Farrant who was obviously aware of these facts at the time.

(Reply to this)

Farrant's Black Magic Telephone Threats - The Facts
(Anonymous)
2006-06-05 11:44 am UTC (from 195.92.67.75) (link) DeleteFreezeScreen
"In Court in 1970, Mrs. Gillian Bradish said that she recognised your voice on the telephone when you made your vile threats as she had fequently heard you yalking in company in a pub. You said (in Court) that you couldn’t have phoned her as her telephone number was ex-directory! (This is a main point which led to you being held responsible for the phone calls0. If you hadn’t previously tried to telephone her, then how would you even know that her number was ex-directory? And another thing. You said you were later paid compensation by the Court for this. This is an outright lie. YOU WERE NOT. Where is your hard evidence to back up this statement? Please either refer us to it, or produce it here. DAVID FARRANT."

The Daily Mirror, 5 November 1970, published inaccurate and unbalanced report of the outcome of the court case. A complaint was immediately lodged with the Press Council against the Daily Mirror by Seán Manchester. The Press Council upheld Seán Manchester's complaint and the Daily Mirror was obliged to publish a statement offereing balancing commentary which they did at the foot of page two of their newspaper on 26 November 1970 (not the following year as previously stated). Criminal compensation was awarded to Seán Manchester in the following year by the Criminal Compensation Board as the case brought by him, having been proved, resulted in compensation for injuries sustained. It is regrettable in the extreme that the deception upon Mr & Mrs Bradish by David Farrant was not realised by them until after the court case when Mrs Bradish was put on the spot by the prosecuting lawyer when asked how she knew who made the telephone calls. She went along with what she had been told by Farrant. However, in the following year she accepted that she had been wrong and realised it was Farrant who made the threatening black magic calls. Until the trial, Seán Manchester had never spoken nor met Mrs Bradish. There was no meetings in pubs or hearing voices in pubs. This is sheer fabrication from Farrant. How could she possibly have recognised Seán Manchester's voice when she had made no contact with him until the day of the court case?

Seán Manchester was informed by Tony "Hutchinson" (in whose cellar Farrant had been residing from August 1969 until August 1970) that the Bradish telephone number was ex-directory. "Hutchinson" was aware of Mr & Mrs Bradish and had spoken to them on various occasions in pubs. Seán Manchester most definitely had not. The information about the telephone was not solicited. It was revealed in a conversation along with much else about the Bradish situation. "Hutchinson" was a potential witness for the prosecution in the Bradish case but didn't want to get involved and would have therefore been a hostile witness if summoned. He had provided Farrant with his coal cellar when Farrant was evicted from his flat in August 1969. Farant remained ensconced in the coal cellar until his arrest on the night of 17 August 1970 after which he was held on remand at Brixton Prison. When allowed out on bail, Farrant took up residence at the Bradish household as their lodger, It was during this period that the black magic telephone threats were made.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

Re: Farrant's Black Magic Telephone Threats - The Facts - (Anonymous), 2006-06-05 02:45 pm UTC
Re: Farrant's Black Magic Telephone Threats - The Facts - (Anonymous), 2006-06-05 03:26 pm UTC
Re: Farrant's Black Magic Telephone Threats - The Facts - (Anonymous), 2006-06-05 08:55 pm UTC
The only way to resolve this matter is by a lie detector test ...
(Anonymous)
2006-06-06 03:42 pm UTC (from 195.92.67.69) (link) DeleteFreezeScreen
I have been asked not to comment further here, so I shall conclude by reminding interested parties that Seán Manchester has offered to take a lie detector test on the matter of the alleged black magic telephone calls for the past thirty-six years and has reiterated that offer via his people for the past five years on the internet. That offer, I happen to know, stands and will remain standing irrespective as to whether Farrant consents to a lie detector test or not.

If (and that's an extremely big "IF") Farrant does consent, he should agree to answer the following:

Did you bear a grudge against Mr Bradish because of his alleged advances to your first wife prior to your separation in 1969?

Did you run a campaign against Mr Bradish at the time whereby you left malicious stickers against the man in pub toilets and other places?

Do you accept that Mrs Bradish was suffering from serious mental problems during the relevant period?

Did you make the black magic telephone calls alluded to by Mrs Bradish in court in 1970?

Seán Manchester will unilaterally take a lie detector test on this matter.

It only remains for someone sufficiently interested in the United Kingdom to make the necessary arrangements.

Farrant knows how to contact Seán Manchester via the internet should an approach be made to him by a professional body who would be willing to carry out such a test.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

LIE DETECTOR TEST... - (Anonymous), 2006-06-06 05:14 pm UTC
Re: LIE DETECTOR TEST... - (Anonymous), 2006-06-07 07:48 am UTC
Re: LIE DETECTOR TEST... - (Anonymous), 2006-06-07 03:37 pm UTC
Re: LIE DETECTOR TEST... - (Anonymous), 2006-06-11 08:43 am UTC
Man, Myth and Manchester
(Anonymous)
2006-06-06 04:11 pm UTC (from 84.71.29.226) (link) DeleteFreezeScreen
THE LIFE AND TIMES OF BABY MANCHESTER

Many people will be aware, that in recent times, Mr. Patrick Sean Manchester, a self-appointed ‘bishop’ of the Old Catholic Church, is also claiming to be a direct descendent of the poet Lord Byron. It is his ‘hereditary right’, he says, and ‘backs up’ his claim by a mass of self-pronounced assumptions.
The main one seems to be, a claim made frequently by Manchester, that his mother’s side of the family, he is less unclear about; or perhaps more accurately, he is unwilling to state more mundane facts, that his father’s only claim to any distinction, was a career as an audit clerk.

But to examine the evidence in more detail…It is a fact that the baby Manchester was born in Nottingham on a dreary Council Estate not far from the busy main line railway station; indeed, only nine miles distant or so from the magnificent remains of Newstead Abbey, the legitimate home of the legendary Lord Byron.
It was here that his parents often used to take him (Manchester) to visit from an early age, and who can imagine what used to run through the infant Manchester’s mind as he stared up in wonder at the awesome ruins from his push chair, or what premature thoughts of grandeur were born in this surreal environment that were to have a bearing on his later life. (A marked distinction, perhaps, from his parental home in Nottingham). The makings of a fragmented dream, no doubt, that tormented the young infant’s mind… Why, oh why, should not all this not be a part of his personal heritage? After all, none of the previous residents were around who could take objection; who could despoil his claims; but more than that, he had set foot in the ruins…he had actually been there!

More than likely, this is how the dream first began…And it is a fact, that from the early 1970’s, Manchester was referring to himself as a ‘Lord’; although at the time, he was only using this title loosely, calling himself “Peter Lord”. His obsession with the genuine Lord Byron, apparently took concrete form a few years later, when Manchester began proclaiming himself to be a direct descendent of the great poet. This claim - that Manchester commonly circulated to the media and others - went mainly unchallenged, but in a an interview to Time Out in 1980 (in fact, about Manchester’s connection with myself), the ‘great man’ appears to have become ‘unstuck’. He was asked about his widely circulated claims to be a ‘Lord’, and, taken by surprise, Manchester replied to Duncan Camphell… “The Lord’ is, says Manchester a joke-name that arose out of a clairvoyant’s opinion that Manchester had been a 13th century Celtic war-lord”. (TIME OUT, January, 1981).

Manchester was obviously very cautious about this claim, because even three years later in a letter he wrote to City Limits, (again concerning myself) he stated … “according to family records I am the descendent of the noble Bard’s indiscretion with a housemaid at Newstead Abbey”! City Limits, May 25 1984. (Explanation mark my own).

Well, I suppose some might surmise that at least we have the evidence to support Manchester’s claims to his ‘hereditary title’. I suppose we must be fair to Manchester, in that at last, he volunteered information to support his “ancestral links”; but, on the other hand, all this really confirms - if true - is that Manchester is, in effect (and as he appears to boast), only the result of a clandestine affair the real Lord Byron had with some domestic prostitute.
If I am wrong, and if something other should really be the case, then please, Mr Manchester, I beseech thee - in view of the fact that this claim of yours has appeared so persistently on public record - please show us some corroborative evidence which might verify the true situation once and for all.

I am sure that Lord Byron, himself, would have desired you to produce such evidence. If for no other reason, than to let him rest peacefully in his grave.

David Farrant

First published in Man, Myth and Manchester Series 1 Issue 1 ISBN 0951786776 2000 and is in the public domain.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

Re: Man, Myth and Manchester - (Anonymous), 2006-06-06 05:20 pm UTC
Re: Green, Groan and Get me the sick bucket. - (Anonymous), 2006-06-07 09:09 am UTC
Re: Green, Groan and Get me the sick bucket. - (Anonymous), 2006-06-07 03:38 pm UTC
Re: Green, Groan and Get me the sick bucket. - (Anonymous), 2006-06-07 05:01 pm UTC
Re: Green, Groan and Get me the sick bucket. - [info]alexlucard, 2006-06-07 05:15 pm UTC
Re: Green, Groan and Get me the sick bucket. - (Anonymous), 2006-06-07 06:05 pm UTC
Re: Green, Groan and Get me the sick bucket. - [info]alexlucard, 2006-06-07 06:13 pm UTC
Re: Green, Groan and Get me the sick bucket. - (Anonymous), 2006-06-07 06:30 pm UTC
Re: Green, Groan and Get me the sick bucket. - [info]alexlucard, 2006-06-07 06:42 pm UTC
Re: Green, Groan and Get me the sick bucket. - (Anonymous), 2006-06-07 06:47 pm UTC
Re: Green, Groan and Get me the sick bucket. - [info]alexlucard, 2006-06-07 07:00 pm UTC
Re: Green, Groan and Get me the sick bucket. - (Anonymous), 2006-06-07 07:20 pm UTC
Re: Green, Groan and Get me the sick bucket. - [info]alexlucard, 2006-06-07 07:49 pm UTC
Re: Green, Groan and Get me the sick bucket. - (Anonymous), 2006-06-07 07:19 pm UTC
Re: Green, Groan and Get me the sick bucket. - (Anonymous), 2006-06-07 07:48 pm UTC
Re: Fearnley needs to open her eyes. - (Anonymous), 2006-06-08 03:17 pm UTC
Re: Fearnley needs to open her eyes. - (Anonymous), 2006-06-08 04:22 pm UTC
Manchester The Posturing Catamite - (Anonymous), 2006-06-08 04:24 pm UTC
Re: Manchester The Posturing Catamite - (Anonymous), 2006-06-08 04:44 pm UTC
Re: Fearnley needs to open her eyes. - (Anonymous), 2006-06-08 07:09 pm UTC
Re: Fearnley needs to open her eyes. - (Anonymous), 2006-06-09 05:38 am UTC
Re: Man, Myth and Cremation? - (Anonymous), 2006-06-07 09:22 am UTC
Re: Man, Myth and Cremation? - (Anonymous), 2006-06-07 04:18 pm UTC
Re: Man, Myth and Cremation? - (Anonymous), 2006-06-07 04:21 pm UTC
Re: Man, Myth and Cremation? - (Anonymous), 2006-06-07 04:33 pm UTC
Re: Man, Myth and Manchester - (Anonymous), 2006-06-07 07:55 pm UTC
Re: Man, Myth and Manchester - (Anonymous), 2006-06-07 07:57 pm UTC
Re: Man, Myth and Manchester - (Anonymous), 2006-06-08 07:19 pm UTC
Re: Man, Myth and Manchester - (Anonymous), 2006-06-08 07:23 pm UTC
Re: Man, Myth and Manchester - (Anonymous), 2006-06-08 07:26 pm UTC
filter all this spam out please
(Anonymous)
2006-06-07 07:57 am UTC (from 195.92.67.65) (link) DeleteFreezeScreen
i have read farrents copied and pasted stuff about manchester so many times on the web that i could recite it from memory

doesnt he realize this is doing him -farrent- no favors and shows him in the worst light possible

and by the way count alucard should invest in a spam filter

lol

(Reply to this)(Thread)

Re: filter all this spam out please - [info]alexlucard, 2006-06-07 12:55 pm UTC
Re: filter all this spam out please - (Anonymous), 2006-06-07 07:10 pm UTC
Threat to Robin Hood's Grave
(Anonymous)
2006-06-07 07:23 pm UTC (from 82.38.130.19) (link) DeleteFreezeScreen
There has been a very strange threat to blow Robin Hood's Grave up this weekend and for once our fave rave bish isn't guilty! For details see the account on the Highgate Vampire Board or bossy bishops!
The police have been involved! Wow! Crazy stuff!

(Reply to this)(Thread)

Re: Threat to Robin Hood's Grave - (Anonymous), 2006-06-10 12:57 pm UTC
The Truth Behind The WWP Rubbish
(Anonymous)
2006-06-07 09:37 pm UTC (from 82.18.10.226) (link) DeleteFreezeScreen
Sean Manchester has made much out of Daivd Farrant being a Nazi even though it's Sean who has been busted for his involvement in a Nazi threat.

Anyway, Sean seems to think that David's WWP is linked to Nazism.

Well not so my friends.
Sean took a picture of Davids head and stuck it on a very crude backdrop featuring Nazi symbols etc etc.
Wicca and Nazism are two entirely different things.

Anyway, don't take my word for it.
Here, have a look at what 'Time Out' magazine had to say on the matter back in May 1979.


Image


Look out for the Nazi symbols etc.
Now ask yourself this: Who, two years previously, had been outed for his involvement in a Nazi scare plot?
Ladies & Gentlemen...I give you Mad Sean Manchester.



By the way, Sean, if you want to claim copyright over the doctored image, you are more than welcome.



Sincerely Yours
Archbishop Shórñ Scrotum

(Reply to this)

The Real Perverts
(Anonymous)
2006-06-08 09:18 am UTC (from 195.92.67.76) (link) DeleteFreezeScreen
Bishop Manchester is someone regarded as taking a strong position AGAINST every sort of sexual perversion. David Farrant (born 23 January 1946), John Pope (born 11 July 1953) and [name deleted] (born 18 April 1934) know and support each other. Farrant has an indecency conviction, Pope has a sexual assault conviction and [name deleted]'s websites have been shut down for containing lewd images of very young persons. The individual who complained about the obscene content on [name deleted]'s websites is Bishop Seán Manchester. [Name deleted] is a defrocked Roman Catholic priest with a strong interest in Tantricism, Occultism and Freemasonry. Together with Farrant and the paedophile John Simmons, he complained to Bishop Manchester's ISP and succeeded in closing down the bishop's website on 21 June 2002. It named and shamed known paedophiles such as Simmons.

Due to the intervention of Farrant and his perverted friends these webpages remain disabled. Bishop Manchester has been a strong voice against perversion, both within and outside the church. He supports "Sarah's Law" and has come under attack from perverts and diabolists because of his outspoken views. The hatred against the bishop has often been fuelled by Farrant who was sentenced to two years imprisonment in June 1974 for threatening witnesses in John Pope's indecent sexual assualt case. Pope was nonetheless found guilty of molesting a young boy. Their mutual friend, [name deleted], also has an interest in children. Inappropriate images of young people filled his websites until Bishop Manchester brought complaints and had them removed. Half a dozen sites belonging to [name deleted] have been disabled.

There are any number of bogus “priests,” “bishops” and “archbishops” in all denominations who fraudulently lay claim to taking and holding Holy Orders. The autocephalous Old Catholic Churches are no exception, having suffered their share. Thus the obligation is placed on those in legitimate Orders to expose these revellers in deception who invariably abuse their false claims further with despicable acts of wrongdoing and perversion. Archbishop Illtyd Thomas of London, England, who is a bona fide Old Catholic Bishop, was duped into conducting an ordination for a certain John Christopher Simmons on 18 March 1986 which, on 6 January 1987, was declared null and void owing to the fact that (a) Simmons had not been diaconated, (b) Simmons’ intention was in serious error, (c) Simmons had not revealed, nor confessed, his criminal history and homosexual lifestyle, (d) Simmons’ was in a state of mortal sin due to his conduct for which no repentance was evident. Archbishop Thomas, therefore, had been deceived and, when the irrefutable and appalling evidence about Simmons emerged, was obliged to issue and publish an Instrument of Release and Degradation on 6 January 1987 that revoked, nullified and deprived Simmons of the office of the Sacred Priesthood. Bishop Harold Norwood has similarly refuted Simmons’ claim of being subsequently validly ordained on 9 March 1993, and then consecrated by Bishop Norwood in the following month on 9 April 1993. Had it been otherwise, this ordination and consecration would still have been rendered invalid for reasons identical to those given for the ordination in 1986. Bishop Norwood has described Simmons in a communication to Bishop Manchester as “the almost perfect conman.” Hence, the late John Christopher Simmons of Ashford, Kent, England, was not a person holding valid or recognised Holy Orders in any jurisdiction within Old Catholicism.

(Reply to this)

The Real Perverts (continued)
(Anonymous)
2006-06-08 09:20 am UTC (from 195.92.67.76) (link) DeleteFreezeScreen
To accuse ALL clergy within (or claiming to be within) the Old Catholic denomination of perversion is no different to accusing all Roman Catholic (and any other denomination's) clergy of being paedophiles because of the appalling revelations about paedophile priests within the Roman Catholic fold over recent years. One is one too many, of course, but it is wrong to label everyone as being the same as a tiny minority of evil interlopers. Worse still, it is a travesty to attack a stalwart opponent of sodomites and paedophiles on the say-so of a man who surrounds himself with these perverts. Yet this is precisely what Ian Keith Gomeche (born 10 February 1952) has done on Combat 18's Nazi message board, having been duped into believing what Farrant told him about Bishop Manchester. Attempts to post corrective information has been censored. Only stolen images of Bishop Manchester plus libel provided solely by Farrant remain. Accusing totally innocent persons of being "nonces," as apparently happens with sickening regularity where Gomeche is concerned, devalues the currency of "Sarah's Law" and works totally in favour of the real perverts.

Farrant's longest standing friend is Nava Grunberg (similar age to Farrant) who lives in Hampstead lane close to Highgate Cemetery. She has known him since their early teens and took care of his possessions while he was inside prison. She also inherited a considerable amount of money and is thought to have funded some of Farrant's malicious pamphlets which he self-publishes from his Muswell Hill bed-sitting room. Grunberg was married and has two children. Now divorced, the children remain with her. Grunberg told a girlfriend that another male friend of hers was abusing her son. The girlfriend immediately reported the abuse to Social Services and the police in 1997. Social Services were prevented from examining the boy by Grunberg who would not make a statement to them, even though her son had been abused from the age seven until nine. She prevented any kind of investigation taking place, permitting the paedophile into her home until the relationship she had with him reached its conclusion.

Farrant and his current girlfriend, Catherine Fearnley (born 17 February 1973), spend a lot of time on the internet posting libel about Bishop Manchester. One of their favourite ploys is to falsely claim that the bishop once held membership in and canvassed for the National Front in the 1970s. Like all the rest of the fabrications circulated by them, no evidence is offered to support the allegation. People are just expected to accept Farrant's word for it. Even the Anti Nazi League have received this sort of misinformation from Farrant and his associates, resulting in Bishop Manchester being met by them at certain venues. On one such occasion, following a live chat show, the bishop confronted a group of ANL members in the BBC canteen at Wood Lane. They were easy to identify because they were all wearing white ANL T-shirts and had been heckling the bishop whenever he spoke. It was discovered that they had received the NF smears about Bishop Manchester from Farrant. Other colleagues of the bishop whose names are known to Farrant have also had similar confrontations with the ANL.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

Re: BEWARE BOGUS BISHOPS (continued) - (Anonymous), 2006-06-08 02:48 pm UTC
Re: The Real Perverts (continued) - (Anonymous), 2006-06-08 02:49 pm UTC
Re: The Real Perverts (continued) - (Anonymous), 2006-06-08 02:51 pm UTC
Re: The Real Perverts (continued) - (Anonymous), 2006-06-08 03:32 pm UTC
Re: The Real Perverts (continued) - [info]alexlucard, 2006-06-08 03:58 pm UTC
Re: The Real Perverts (continued) - (Anonymous), 2006-06-08 04:06 pm UTC
Re: The Real Perverts (continued) - [info]alexlucard, 2006-06-08 04:21 pm UTC
Re: The Real Perverts (continued) - (Anonymous), 2006-06-08 06:24 pm UTC
Re: The Real Perverts (continued) - [info]alexlucard, 2006-06-08 07:00 pm UTC
Re: The Real Perverts (continued) - (Anonymous), 2006-06-08 07:16 pm UTC
Re: The Real Perverts (continued) - [info]alexlucard, 2006-06-08 08:07 pm UTC
NOW YOU SEE HIM - NOW YOU DON'T! - (Anonymous), 2006-06-08 08:08 pm UTC
Re: NOW YOU SEE HIM - NOW YOU DON'T! - [info]alexlucard, 2006-06-08 08:13 pm UTC
Get you facts right, Lucard
(Anonymous)
2006-06-09 09:16 am UTC (from 195.92.67.75) (link) DeleteFreezeScreen
So you've joined the liars now, have you Lucard?

Seán Manchester never said you must be a vampire because your name is Dracula spelt backwards. Where is your evidence? Your just someone who runs off at the mouth and joins the mob when someone you don't like is under attack. As for Rosemary Guiley (who, incidentally, said nothing against Seán Manchester) and Carol Page (who did), neither could stand David Farrant and said so!

Carol Page, an American journalist, wrote the following to Seán Manchester on 20 October 1989: “It is clear that you have a great deal of knowledge and experience with the subject [of vampirology] and I will gladly devote an entire chapter in my book to your work.” They met in a London suburb for a little under two hours on 15 November 1989. This was the only time they held a conversation. It became apparent that Page was out of her depth and knew nothing about either vampirology or vampiroidism. Despite employing Seán Manchester’s work to provide, albeit in altered form, one fifth of the text for her book, she failed to mention him in her acknowledgements and would not supply him with a complimentary copy when her book was published. She requested the loan of some photographs, two of which were not returned, and none of which were used as her book contains no illustrations. Page wanted inside information about the subculture, and anything vaguely sensational. She was to be disappointed. It was explained that Seán Manchester is a researcher into supernatural phenomena and that his published work The Highgate Vampire might best inform her about his modus operandi. During the meeting, conducted in an indoor café, Page wore exceptionally dark sunglasses (as in the picture above) which made it impossible to see her eyes. Seán Manchester had no real wish to constantly look only at his own reflection and, therefore, averted his gaze from time to time. Page makes an issue of this in her book. She is indescribably petty. It is indeed incredible that her book ever came to be published. Save for the text devoted to defaming the VRS president, her effort dwells on a few vampiroids she met plus a catastrophic television show beamed by satellite from Budapest to the USA on which Seán Manchester, while invited, declined to appear. His instinct, once again, proved correct.

Having by now met Seán Manchester and absorbed his work from cover to cover, Page wrote on 23 February 1990: “The chapter about your work is based on your book, The Highgate Vampire, and the transcript of the interview we did in November.” It is nothing of the sort, needless to say. Her letter continued: “I told [Julian Henriques of the BBC] that I did not think any look at the modern vampire ‘scene,’ if you will, was complete without a look at Seán Manchester and his work. I hope that is all right with you.” This was written by Page an entire three months after she had met Seán Manchester, and long after she had read and absorbed the contents of The Highgate Vampire. She concluded her letter with the following sentence: “Your work in this area is important and I congratulate you for taking the time to do it.”

(Reply to this)(Thread)

Re: Get you facts right, Lucard - [info]alexlucard, 2006-06-09 12:54 pm UTC
ANYBODY GOT ANY MORE GLUE/ - (Anonymous), 2006-06-09 02:11 pm UTC
Re: ANYBODY GOT A CLUE - (Anonymous), 2006-06-10 11:28 am UTC
Re: ANYBODY GOT A CLUE - (Anonymous), 2006-06-10 08:10 pm UTC
Re: ANYBODY GOING TO SUE? - (Anonymous), 2006-06-11 09:11 am UTC
Re: ANYBODY GOING TO SUE? - (Anonymous), 2006-06-14 11:52 am UTC
Get you facts right, Lucard
(Anonymous)
2006-06-09 09:19 am UTC (from 195.92.67.75) (link) DeleteFreezeScreen
When Carol Page came to write her book she wrongly attributed the damage to tombs at Highgate Cemetery, not to those persons actually convicted of such crimes, but to the VRS president whom she portrays in what can only be described as defamatory terms. Seán Manchester has not been convicted of any crime or misdemeanour. She also claims that he has been banned from entering Highgate Cemetery. This, again, is completely untrue as the Friends of Highgate Cemetery will gladly confirm. It is hardly surprising that her publishers are not interested in reprinting her book. It misinforms and offends.

The catalogue of distortions and half-truths in her book will not be dignified with too much repetition, save that one of the milder inaccuracies ~ the false attribution that Seán Manchester considers Lady Caroline Lamb to be a vampire ~ is not untypical of the journalistic style employed. Her attention to what is a matter of public record took a very poor second place to the agenda which Seán Manchester describes in his vampirological guide as being reliant on “squalid sensationalism, silly gossip and malicious falsehood.” He also raises the very significant point that “Page sought no comment” from him “on any of the charges she brings.”

Readers of her book were quick to voice their disapproval. A representative sample follows:


“I would treat anything this woman said with the utmost scepticism.”

~ Clare Emmett, Norwich, Norfolk, England.


“Regarding Highgate Cemetery, as I recall, the criminal damage was done by David Farrant, not Manchester who I believe was on record then as attempting to counter [the true offender’s] odd behaviour.”

~ Phædra Kelly, Freshwater, Isle of Wight, UK.


“I have pretty much concluded that Ms Page doesn’t care about what she has written, she is only waiting for royalties.”

~ Dorion Cable, Detroit, Michigan, USA.


“She is snide and condescending, both to the people she interviews and to the reader. She incessantly states her own opinions, interpretations, and snotty comments at every opportunity.”

~ Chad Savage, San Francisco, California, USA.


“She’s not at all objective and it definitely colours the way she writes. She takes things I said so far out of context that even though I said certain things they have a totally different meaning than I meant. Carol took one isolated incident and exaggerated it and made me out to be bi-sexual, which I am not. … Sexual preference is a big thing to her, all through the whole book. It seems what Carol wanted to write about was sex, not ‘vampires.’ … I don’t appreciate being used as a tool to sell her book.”

~ Shannon, Chicago, Illinois, USA.


(Shannon, like Seán Manchester, was interviewed by Carol Page for Blood Lust.)


Rob Brautigam commented at the time: “Those guys at ‘prestigious’ Harper Collins [publishers] must have been asleep on the job when they decided to accept such a worthless book for publication.” Jeanne Youngson, who had collaborated with Page throughout the production of the book, wrote in her Count Dracula Fan Club newsletter in January 1992: “I’m sure some people envy Carol Page. It’s not often one can get a book published and get paid for it while shooting down people one doesn’t like.”

Meanwhile, Seán Manchester has, of course, revealed the whole Blood Lust saga in a chapter of his concise vampirological guide, The Vampire Hunter’s Handbook.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

Re: Get you facts right, Lucard - (Anonymous), 2006-06-09 01:14 pm UTC
Re: Get you facts right, Lucard - (Anonymous), 2006-06-09 02:33 pm UTC
Get your facts right, Barbara Green
(Anonymous)
2006-06-09 02:26 pm UTC (from 195.92.67.76) (link) DeleteFreezeScreen
As usual, Barbara Green hasn't a clue what she's talking about. She's just regurgitating rubbish which was rubbish from its origin.

Seán Manchester could not have "made her sit outside in the freezing cold" because they were both sat INSIDE a restaurant. Neither Seán Manchester nor Carol Page "paid for anything" because, as Page was quick to remind him, it was all being paid for on EXPENSES courtesy of her publisher. He did not "brag about how he had revolutionized the 'hand held' vampire stake." This was a total FABRICATION from Page who had little else to do when the required sensationalism she so deperately sought failed to manifest. Nor was he "annoyed with her cos she did not recognise hims straight away." Another fabrication because, in fact, she recognised him straight away. He had rather more trouble in recognising her as she plodded to her table wearing a massive animal fur with huge trainers on her feet. What a sight! I just wish Seán Manchester had taken a photograph so we could all have had a laugh at this would-be feminist dressed like a thrift shop reject.

Apart from Barbara Green and the usual clique posting here, absolutely nobody has had a good word to say about Carol Page, her book or anything associated with her. Blood Lust proved to be a complete and utter disaster for her and she made a career change soon afterwards. Blood Lust was her first and last commission from a publisher. Quite right too!

(Reply to this)(Thread)

Re: Get your facts right, Barbara Green - (Anonymous), 2006-06-09 04:04 pm UTC
Re: Get your facts right, Barbara Green - (Anonymous), 2006-06-10 11:32 am UTC
Re: Get your facts right, Barbara Green - (Anonymous), 2006-06-09 08:41 pm UTC
Re: Get your facts right, Barbara Green - (Anonymous), 2006-06-10 10:58 am UTC
Re: Get your facts right, Barbara Green - [info]alexlucard, 2006-06-10 02:55 pm UTC
Re: Get your facts right, Catherine Fearnley - (Anonymous), 2006-06-10 04:20 pm UTC
Re: Get your facts right, Catherine Fearnley - (Anonymous), 2006-06-10 05:44 pm UTC
Re: Get your facts right, Farrant - (Anonymous), 2006-06-10 11:23 am UTC
Re: Get your facts right, Farrant - [info]alexlucard, 2006-06-10 02:57 pm UTC
Re: Get your facts right, Lucard - (Anonymous), 2006-06-10 04:13 pm UTC
Re: Get your facts right, Lucard - [info]alexlucard, 2006-06-10 05:27 pm UTC
Re: Publicity-seekers obviously publish their names - (Anonymous), 2006-06-10 04:17 pm UTC
Re: Publicity-seekers obviously publish their names - [info]alexlucard, 2006-06-10 05:28 pm UTC
Re: Publicity-seekers obviously publish their names - (Anonymous), 2006-06-10 05:47 pm UTC
Re: Publicity-seekers obviously publish their names - (Anonymous), 2006-06-11 09:20 am UTC
Re: Publicity-seekers obviously publish their names - (Anonymous), 2006-06-14 01:45 pm UTC
FAO Sean Manchester
(Anonymous)
2006-06-10 09:21 pm UTC (from 81.129.182.99) (link) DeleteFreezeScreen
I've followed this debate for a while now and it seems that Sean Manchester claims to be too busy to talk the common man, yet has all the time in the world to post on forum boards.


The reason why I know it's Sean, is simply because his writing has slipped from 3rd to 1st person style many a time, albeit it only for one point here and there.

Alas Sean, you can't expect to do that and get away with it.

The catalyst for your error's, seems to hinge on any point that doesn't sit well with you.
I've noticed that you sandwich your slip up between cut & paste sections.

In psychology, we'd no doubt see this as a common trait of defensive mechanisms when confronted by subtle angst.


Regardless.
Mr Sean, I noticed that you said the photo's are misrepresented, but you didn't comment on HOW they were misrepresented.

Why was you dressed as a Satanist?
It's obvious you are charging the knife in the picture.
The article from the newspaper was pretty self explanatory and I'm confused why you'd deny it when it is clearly you.
I've noticed that you are all too ready to bad mouth John Pope and link him to David, but it seems that you are the one in collusion with him.

You also mentioned that he writes for an NF magazine and responded that the info was available online.
I've taken your word for it and searched extensively for it, but to no avail.
Would you be so kind as to link us up to the offending article please?

I'm rather curious that as a man of the cloth, you seem to spend an awful amount of time online engaging in petty squables that date back some 35 years.
Bizarre behaviour really.

I'm also interested in where you conduct your services or Bishoply public duties.
Apart from your own website, I cannot find a single shred of evidence, that you have ever held a public mass other than at your parents and Diana Brewsters funerals, which in the grands scheme of things Bishoply, don't really count.

Also, could you please let me know what University you attended to study for your Theology degree?

David, as much as I'd like to question you, it seems as though you have answered most of the questions posed on your website or on the various forum boards that litter the internet.


I'll thankyou in advance for pointing me in the right directions Sean.
And if, as you say, you are not Sean, then whoever you are, perhaps you can be so kind as to point me in those directtions.
It's obvious you have a huge, vast and somewhat extensive knowledge of Sean's diary, even if you have answered questions in the 1st (strange, odd and disturbing) so failure to come up with these answers will look extremely bad on your part.

Once again:

Where is the online external link that provides info about John Pope writing for an NF magazine?
If it's an NF website, what are you doing onit in the first place.

What University did you go to to study for your theology degree?

Where do you conduct your public services?

Why was you dressed as a Satanist?

Why was you working with John Pope on the Nazi article?


That'll do for starters.

Thankyou for your time.

I'd appreciate it, if David & Co can leave this particular topic alone as I'd like to get the answers straight from Sean.
many thanks.


(Reply to this)(Thread)

Re: FAO Farrant's Dupe - (Anonymous), 2006-06-11 09:14 am UTC
Re: FAO Farrant's Dupe - (Anonymous), 2006-06-11 04:03 pm UTC
Re 'VAMPIRE' RADIO - DAON'T MISS! - (Anonymous), 2006-06-11 11:25 am UTC
Re: Re 'VAMPIRE' RADIO - DAON'T MISS! - [info]alexlucard, 2006-06-11 03:11 pm UTC
Re: Re 'VAMPIRE' RADIO - DAON'T MISS! - (Anonymous), 2006-06-11 04:29 pm UTC
Re: Re 'VAMPIRE' RADIO - DAON'T MISS! - (Anonymous), 2006-06-11 07:29 pm UTC
Re: Re 'VAMPIRE' RADIO - DAON'T MISS! - (Anonymous), 2006-06-11 10:57 pm UTC
Who Am I?
(Anonymous)
2006-06-13 12:14 am UTC (from 86.138.131.241) (link) DeleteFreezeScreen
My impression of 'fat Sean' on the radio, right now....

"Erm...errr....erm....so....errr....and...errr....and errr...so this entity....errr....and errr...and.....had red eyes......mmmm....oh...errr...and..."


FOR FUCKS SAKE YOU STAMMERING FOOL, SPIT IT OUT.

AND YOU HAVE THE NERVE TO BITCH ABOUT DAVID'S STAMMER!!!

(Reply to this)(Thread)

Re: Who Am I? - (Anonymous), 2006-06-13 12:36 am UTC
Re: Who Am I? - (Anonymous), 2006-06-13 12:38 am UTC
Re: Who Am I? - (Anonymous), 2006-06-13 10:46 am UTC
PERMISSION FROM WHOM, SEAN? - (Anonymous), 2006-06-13 01:59 pm UTC
Re: PERMISSION FROM WHOM, SEAN? - (Anonymous), 2006-06-13 06:37 pm UTC
Re: PERMISSION FROM WHOM, SEAN? - (Anonymous), 2006-06-13 06:50 pm UTC

(Post a new comment)

Mass action on selected comments:

Page 2 of 3
<<[1] [2] [3] >>

Welcome, [info]alexlucard!