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

(Post a new comment)

Oh noes!
[info]alexlucard
2006-06-13 11:36 pm UTC (from 65.27.110.141) (link) DeleteFreezeScreen
Re: Man, Myth and Manchester
(Anonymous)
2006-06-08 07:27 pm UTC (from 84.71.184.52) (link) Select
Manchester did not marry for almost another quarter of a century. The divorce was reasonably amicable. This first union was declared invalid by the Christian Church when, at a much later date, Bishop Sean Manchester sought and was granted an annulment.”

The above can be taken as an excellent example of how Manchester tries to distort - nay ‘change’ - any facts or events that might not conveniently suit him; in this instance, almost a desperate attempt to ‘cover his tracks’ in the event his current wife, Sarah Manchester, were ever to discover he had two children by an undisclosed marriage.

In fact, Manchester married his first wife, Mary on a fateful April Fool’s Day in 1967. Their first son was born at The Royal Northern Hospital in March 1968, and a second son conceived shortly afterwards; although by the time he was born, the following March, Mary had moved back to live with her parents. Both sons bear a physical testimony to their paternity. Mary soon began a relationship with a boy who lived nearby, some years her junior. Her divorce for adultery from Manchester having been finalized on June 30th 1971, she married this person in July 1971, and afterwards bore him two children. He also formally adopted Manchester’s two children in 1972. The adoption application stated that: “The father of the infants is Mr. Patrick Sean Manchester whose last known address was 553 Holloway Road, London, N.19. A registered letter was sent there and returned”. It went on to say that Mr. Manchester was liable, by virtue of an Order made at Harrow Court on 7th of May 1969 to contribute £2.50 weekly per child; however, he had not complied with the terms of the maintenance order since 19th of April 1972 when he paid £1 per week for 5 weeks; prior to this he had not paid since April 1970 when he paid £1.25. He could not be found since, though he had given his address as 26 Freegrove Road, Holloway, N7, when a social worker had visited this address, she reported that “Mr. Manchester was unknown to any of the residents.”

Manchester was never granted any annulment by the Christian Church (is is noteworthy that he carefully avoids stating which particular Church this was); unless he really means that he later granted himself one (strictly illegal) under the pathetic auspices of being a bona fide bishop.

© David Farrant first published in Man, Myth and Manchester Monthly, Volume 2 Series 1 ISSN 1744-8514 2004 and is in the public domain.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

Re: Oh noes!
(Anonymous)
2006-06-14 07:34 am UTC (from 82.38.130.19) (link) DeleteFreezeScreen
We are presently liaising with certain theologians on the whoel question off this off shoot old catholics and hopefully will be able to throw more light on this murky area of self appointed priests and bishops--why not a self appointed Pope while theya re at it? In particular we are going to try to establish how valid any sacraments administered by the Bournmouth branch(!!) are--I mean, it would be a bit of a shock to get married in hsi church--or bungalow--and find out you wweret married all the time! Also, if he does confessions(shudders!extreme dikkipogginess being closeted in a box with him, telling him your secrets!) and of course of any Eucharist adminsintered by him has any validity at all! Or is it all just theatre!
Actually it is more than likely all just stuff on his website as he wont say where his services are held anyway but does advrtise his bungalow as a retreat centre so thats a bit iffy! Wonder if he registers himself as a Charity????????????????

bg

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]ashi_moto
2006-06-14 10:16 am UTC (from 69.183.147.180) (link) DeleteFreezeScreen
Wow, these people are fucking nuts.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

WOLF IN SHEEP'S CLOTHING
(Anonymous)
2006-06-14 11:28 am UTC (from 172.209.23.236) (link) DeleteFreezeScreen
WOLF IN SHEEP’S CLOTHING

Just to set the record straight for perhaps confused readers here, “Man, Myth and Manchester” is a series of official booklets (all with ISBN’s and lodged with all the major libraries as required by UK law) first released in 2000. As the title suggests, these booklets were released to deal with malicious myths being circulated on the world-wide web by a man who harboured a personal grudge against myself or anybody who happened to come into contact with myself.

At the time, much of this malicious material appeared on two websites hosted by Freeserve; “The Gothic Press” and the “Holy Grail Church” but also ‘cut and pasted’ on numerous other sites on the world-wide web, just as it has recently been ‘cut and pasted’ here.

All of this material is invariably anonymous (just as it is here) but frequently signed by the “Vampire Research Society” and/or the “Friends of Bishop Manchester”.

I have frequently empathised that the real author of all this material is one Mr. Sean Manchester who incredibly (when challenged about this) denies that he has any knowledge of these malicious postings and who has often been known to say (words to the effect of) . . . “This matter has been brought to the bishop’s attention but he feels that it would be beneath his dignity to offer any response”!

Really? But it is not ‘beneath his dignity’ to make all these vindictive allegation in the first place and then desperately try to deny that it is him!

No, Sean. You are not really fooling anybody. Except maybe yourself.

DAVID FARRANT

(Reply to this)(Parent)

No we are not nuts
(Anonymous)
2006-06-14 11:53 am UTC (from 84.71.168.63) (link) DeleteFreezeScreen
No we are not nuts, what we are posting is the truth, and if people don't like it then it is there problem and not ours.

Catherine Fearnley

(Reply to this)(Parent) (Thread)

Re: No we are not nuts
[info]alexlucard
2006-06-14 12:49 pm UTC (from 12.40.176.119) (link) DeleteFreezeScreen
He was talking about Manchester and the whole drama he attempted with my LJ earlier today. There's a link somewhere else to it.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]alexlucard
2006-06-14 12:47 pm UTC (from 12.40.176.119) (link) DeleteFreezeScreen
No shit.

(Reply to this)(Parent) (Thread)

For ashi_moto
(Anonymous)
2006-06-14 01:43 pm UTC (from 84.68.198.20) (link) DeleteFreezeScreen
Sorry, I took that statement the wrong way, I thought that you were talking about us, but at least I hav ethe common decency to appoligize online. And put my own name to it, something which Mr. Manchester seems to be incapable of doing so.

Hi Alex can you give a link to what ashi_moto was replying to so that I can view the message.

Thanks

Catherine

(Reply to this)(Parent) (Thread)

Re: For ashi_moto
[info]alexlucard
2006-06-14 02:03 pm UTC (from 12.40.176.119) (link) DeleteFreezeScreen
Sure. http://alexlucard.livejournal.com/1059335.html

(Reply to this)(Parent) (Thread)

Re: For ashi_moto
(Anonymous)
2006-06-14 05:23 pm UTC (from 82.38.130.19) (link) DeleteFreezeScreen
Some mothers do 'ave em !

Do I understand this correctly--a certain anonymous sixty year old vampire hunting bishop--I wonder who that could possibly be!!!!!!!wrote a complaint about himself and then threw a wobbler and complained to LJ that someone was attacking his good name ( ?????) and should be banned, and poor old Alex took the rap--till he simply looked in his inmbox and read the IP address--which its pretty obvious that would happen. Computers do keep records and addresses of posters, it isnt just the magic when messages appear, bishy dead! Dead simple!
Even I know that and I'm no computer expert!
barbara


(Reply to this)(Parent) (Thread)

Re: For Alex
(Anonymous)
2006-06-14 09:28 pm UTC (from 82.38.130.19) (link) DeleteFreezeScreen
Thanks for providing the link. I have printed it off for our records. It will be good reference for us at a later date.

Keep up the good work. Kind regards

Catherine Fearnley

(Reply to this)(Parent)

Return Of The Highgate Vampire
(Anonymous)
2006-06-14 11:58 pm UTC (from 82.18.15.245) (link) DeleteFreezeScreen
Well it would appear that Sean Manchester would have us believe he killed the Vampires in Highgate, even if one of them was his ex-common law wife, Jacqueline Cooper, a.k.a Lusia.
But as with all things Mancunian, it is far from over and in the grand scheme of all things Scrote, don't just tale my word for it.
Check out what The Ham & High newspaper had to say on the subject.

Because I love you all so much, I'm going to add a little something David had to say in response to more public interest in the Highvate Vampire episode.


Image


Image




By the way....hey Sean.
Nice own goal, or 'pwnage' as the gaming fraternity would say, regarding complaining about your own post.
On a scale of 1 to 10, that has to rank 50 bajillion on the retarded spastic scale.
I salute your stupidity and I hope you realise we have all saved this thread to use, abuse and publish everywhere to show just how braindead you really are.


Alex, is there any chance you can elaborate on what he tried to do regarding banning IP's?
Real sorry that he tried to fuck you over for what it's worth.
I know you feel as though part of your world has been hijacked, but I can assure you, biting the hand that feeds, was never our agenda or intention.
I guess some people would prefer freedom of speech to only extend in one direction whilst extoling their own virtues.


Archbishop Shórñ Scrotum

(Reply to this)(Thread)

Re: Return Of The Highgate Vampire
[info]alexlucard
2006-06-15 12:08 am UTC (from 65.27.110.141) (link) DeleteFreezeScreen
Lol. Don't worry about it. Here you have a safe place to hopefully have both sides discuss things rationally. Some day.

All he did was post something about himself against LJ terms of services and then claimed one of you guys posted it to attack him. My LJ got suspended because it occured in my internet property, but only for long enough for them to delete the comment.

(Reply to this)(Parent) (Thread)

Re: Return Of The Highgate Vampire
(Anonymous)
2006-06-15 12:18 am UTC (from 82.18.15.245) (link) DeleteFreezeScreen
...and you can definately 100% confirm it was Sean Manchester who was responsible?

(Reply to this)(Parent) (Thread)

Re: Return Of The Highgate Vampire
[info]alexlucard
2006-06-15 01:21 am UTC (from 65.27.110.141) (link) DeleteFreezeScreen
The comment that got my journal temporarily suspended was by the same IP that we are all 99% convinced is Manchester, and yet for some reason the comment was negative towards him.

So unless it really is someone defending seany boy, then yeah.

(Reply to this)(Parent) (Thread)

Re: Return Of The Highgate Vampire
(Anonymous)
2006-06-15 02:24 am UTC (from 172.201.216.226) (link) DeleteFreezeScreen
Just a Final Word on This

Can I just say this much, Alex. And this will have to be very limited as I am restricted by legal actions other people have in progress. I can say no more about those here, but regarding the hostile posts that have been made by Mr. Manchester himself here (and elsewhere all over the world-wide web come to that), all you would have to do, is go back and confirm the IP identity of these and you would find that all these posts - albeit in the third person and supposedly from ‘another person’ – all originate from the same computer.

I do not expect an answer to this here; in fact (for the reason explained), do not want one.

I realise I am saying this publicly, but all this is just a matter of record. But if you check back in private, you will find that all these hostile posts (on his alleged ‘behalf’) all have the same source of origin i.e. these are forthcoming from one particular person, and one person only.

Please do this when you can find some spare time. We already have, and the evidence is completely irrefutable.

Probably say some more about the Highgate ‘vampire’ subject soon, if you don’t mind. But I am limited to confidentiality at this stage on the former matter.

But the evidence IS there and it WILL be forthcoming.

For now, anyway,

DAVID FARRANT.


(Reply to this)(Parent)

Sean...Where Have You Gone?
(Anonymous)
2006-06-15 06:02 pm UTC (from 82.18.15.245) (link) DeleteFreezeScreen
Licking your wounds?

If it's any consolation, you have made me laugh something silly.
I hope you don't mind, but I have been gloating and posting links all over the net.

*cough*bitchslapped*cough*

(Reply to this)(Thread)

Re: Sean...Where Have You Gone?
[info]alexlucard
2006-06-15 06:05 pm UTC (from 12.40.176.119) (link) DeleteFreezeScreen
Alas, this entire thread will soon be deleted from my LJ, so view it while you can.

(Reply to this)(Parent) (Thread)

Re: Sean...Where Have You Gone?
(Anonymous)
2006-06-15 06:09 pm UTC (from 82.18.15.245) (link) DeleteFreezeScreen
..but...but...but...why?

(Reply to this)(Parent) (Thread)

Re: Sean...Where Have You Gone?
[info]alexlucard
2006-06-15 06:13 pm UTC (from 12.40.176.119) (link) DeleteFreezeScreen
http://alexlucard.livejournal.com/1060996.html?view=15649668#t15649668

He keeps putting in requests to have my LJ suspended claiming people are harassing him at home from the very address he posted, and so I'm simply moving it from my Livejournal to the news and pop culture website I partially run where it will get even MORE hits per day and the only person he can complain to is myself. :-D

(Reply to this)(Parent)

The Truth Behind The Public Indecency Allegation
(Anonymous)
2006-06-15 07:20 pm UTC (from 82.18.15.245) (link) DeleteFreezeScreen
Well seeing as Sean is doing his best to get this removed, I'll add a little something else in his honour.

Mannie has a habit of banging on about how David was done for 'indecency' at a churchyard.
Well, as much as he'd like you all to believe it was of a sexual nature, I'm sorry to disappoint you all.

The truth is, it was "indecent behaviour under the Ecclesiastical courts Act".
What does that mean?
Simple.
Anything deemed offensive to Christianity, which under age old laws could be anything from wearing a non christian symbol to painting a pentagram on Holy Ground.
Sean is well aware of this, after all, he's a Bishop right? But he always fails to mention the truth behind the act.

Anyway, as always and because I love you all so damned much, here's a few clippings of David's arrest and subsequent action taken.
You see, Sean is all too happy to bitch about a 'crime' but seldom follows up the punishment...how very Christian.

"Defence solicitor Ralph Haring told the magistrates that there was no case to answer under the Ecclesiastical Courts Act which said that indecent behaviour had to be "riotous, violent and indecent" and none of these had occurred."


For this gross 'public indecency', David Farrant was fined the sum of £10.
Don't just take my word for it, but check out the 2nd & 3rd links.
Also, you may be interested to note, that the 2nd link, from The Sun (national paper) says:

"Sean Manchester, aged 28, of Holloway, London, said: "I challenge him to a test of his powers on neutral ground. Farrant said he was not interested."

...a test of powers? Odd behaviour for such a busy pious deeply religious man.


Monken Hadley Arrest
Image


Monkey Hadley Conclusion
Image


Monken Hadley Conclusion 2
Image


Once again, I hope I have proved that Sean is a liar who wouldn't know the truth if it came up and bitchslapped him.


Sean, once again, over to you, that is, if you have the balls to come back.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

Re: The Truth Behind The Public Indecency Allegation
(Anonymous)
2006-06-15 08:51 pm UTC (from 172.209.45.61) (link) DeleteFreezeScreen
INDECENCY OR INDECENCY?

Well, it might be an apt time to mention this here . . .

In numerous postings Mr. Manchester has made on the world-wide web, one of his favourites is to post . . .”Farrant was convicted of indecent behaviour in a churchyard with a woman”.

Anybody reading this in this form would obviously conclude that some sexual implications were involved; but that is just what Mr. Manchester intended people to think (which is why he never mentions the ‘magical ceremony’ or the subsequent £10 fine).

This says it all really and further gives evidence to Manchester’s desperate attempts to disguise the real truth.

As a matter of interest, in the first edition of his self-published book the “Highgate Vampire”, Mr. Manchester describes how one night in 1982 he laid in wait in a lonely country churchyard armed with a stake to summon a young vampire (he called ‘Lusia’) from her grave where she was buried.

He says he cast a protective Circle on the ground then stripped naked before adourning a purple robe to wait in this Circle. According to Manchester, this ‘vampire’ soon turns up but after seeing the scantily dressed Manchester, turned into a giant spider. He staked this through the heart (think he meant ‘middle’); end of this vampire.

Now Mr. Manchester tells all this as fact – not fiction – so are we not entitled to ask, just what was he doing ‘stripping naked’ in this graveyard?

I would have thought this really DOES constitute indecency. With a vast amount of hypocrisy thrown in!

DAVID FARRANT

(Reply to this)(Parent)


(Post a new comment)

Mass action on selected comments:

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

Welcome, [info]alexlucard!