Most readers will have, at some time, visited Highgate Cemetery, the world class high-Gothic nature reserve on the steep incline up to N6.
Dating back to 1839, it contains 170,000 corpses – that’s nearly as many people as the current (live) population of the borough of Camden. Most thrilling is the western side, only accessible by guided tour, such is the frailty and beauty of its hillside location.
Those Egyptian Catacombs! The Cedar of Lebanon! And it’s here you’ll find a roll call of names, from George Eliot to Beryl Bainbridge and Alexander Litvinenko, who was killed with polonium in 2006 and is entombed in a lead coffin to prevent radiation from leaking out.
Meanwhile, equally worth a few hours’ wander is the flatter eastern side, which anyone can visit for a few quid. It’s most famously home to Kentish Town’s legendary former resident, Karl Marx, whose tomb was subject to attempted bombings in 1965 and in 1970. But that’s another story – for now.
For amongst these ivy-covered tombs and decaying statuary, deep in the shadowy woods, which have served as a location for movies like Abominable Dr Phibes, Taste the Blood of Dracula, and other cult horror flicks (not to mention novels like Niffenegger’s Her Fearful Symmetry), there once lurked a real vampire. And since it’s Hallowe’en, this is his intriguing tale.
In the 1960s the cemetery was dilapidated and prone to vandalism. One intruder was local bloke David Farrant who, after spending a night there in 1969, wrote to the Ham & High about seeing a ‘grey figure’, which he believed was supernatural. Dozens of other folk piped up (well, it was the sixties), describing all manner of ghosts, from spectral cyclists to disembodied voices. Yikes.
Things took a spookier turn still when another man, Sean Manchester, enthused about the existence of a ‘King Vampire of the Undead’, a medieval nobleman who had been buried on the site prior to its incarnation as a cemetery. The Ham & High naturally lapped all this up, with headlines like ‘Does a Vampyr Walk In Highgate?’
A week or so later Farrant reported in the paper that he had seen a spate of dead foxes – with no outward signs as to how they died. It’s worth adding that Farrant himself was never quick to wade in with the ‘V’ word, although by suggesting the existence of ghosts or vampiric figures he captured the public imagination in a big way.
‘If the sky is blue,’ he writes on his website, ‘then who am I to argue the shade? The term vampire was coined by the media. I simply refer to it by its common name, whilst my beliefs as to what it actually is, take second place to the sensationalist headline.’
The outcome? Why, a media frenzy of course, focusing on an ‘official’ vampire hunt on Friday 13 March 1970. By this point arbiters of popular culture ITV had lined up interviews with both Manchester and Farrant, broadcast early on the evening of the 13th – and within two hours a sizable crowd swarmed over gates and walls into the locked cemetery, despite police efforts to control them.
It’s not clear exactly what Farrant and Manchester did that night – but there were rumours of tombs being attempted to be opened, and garlic being chucked around a bit. But thankfully, no stakes through the hearts of the undead.
Farrant and Manchester persisted in their hunt for otherworldly presences, with the former being found soon after by police carrying crucifix and wooden stake, and the latter claiming (in his own book) that he forced open a family vault and was about to drive a stake through a body – but was deterred, at the last minute, by a companion. Thank goodness for that.
How did it end? Well, it sort of tailed off actually, after a rumour that Farrant and Manchester would meet in a duel on Parliament Hill on Friday 13 April 1973 never materialized. Farrant was jailed in 1974 for damaging memorials, which he insisted had been caused by Satanists, not him. On his website, this is his version of the story:
In a brilliant addendum, Farrant is now president of the rather genteel-sounding Highgate Vampire Society.
We think the Highgate Vampire is a brilliant and fascinating example of modern day folklore, and if you’re interested, there are books and websites on the subject galore (see below).
And most recently, the legend has been brought back to life again by West Hampstead-based author Asa Bailey in a book and feature film (called the Highgate Vampire) with, apparently, a new twist and backstory.
For now, however, our yarn ends here…or does it? *Shudder*
PLEASE NOTE: OCTOBER 30th 2020 UPDATE: David Farrant sadly passed away in April 2019. Please scroll down and read the dozens of fascinating comments and debate on this feature.
David Farrant’s website
The Highgate Vampire by Sean Manchester (British Occult Society, 1985).
Beyond the Highgate Vampire by David Farrant (British Psychic and Occult Society, 1991). All black and white images in public domain.
Highgate Cemetery is open from 10-4pm between November and April. Last admission 3pm. Check their website for details of tours of the western side.
If you enjoyed reading this, perhaps you could help out? In November 2020, Kentishtowner will celebrate its 10th birthday. But with the sad demise of our free independent monthly print titles due to advertising revenues in freefall, we need your support more than ever to continue delivering cultural stories that celebrate our neighbourhood. Every contribution is invaluable in helping the costs of running the website and the time invested in the research and writing of the articles published. Support Kentishtowner here for less than the price of a coffee – and it only takes a minute. Thank you.
209 thoughts on “Highgate Cemetery – and the Tale of the Highgate Vampire”
Wonderful article, thank you. It brought back memories of being a teenager in the seventies living in Highgate Village and climbing through the railings of the old cemetery on Halloween with friends and terrifying each other!!
Hello,
I am Anthony Hogg, co-admin of The Highgate Cemetery Vampire Appreciation Society. See: http://www.facebook.com/groups/thcvas/
Mr. Emmes, you’ve written an excellent little article on the case. There’s so much more that happened than the duel-that-never-was, but I can see why you trimmed that down for brevity’s sake. Well done. 🙂
Hello,
I am Vebjørn Hästehufvud, co-admin of The Highgate Cemetery Vampire Appreciation Society.
See: http://www.facebook.com/groups/365206876862465/
There was no duel, however, and never the prospect of one as alleged in the tabloid press who were fed false promises by the “duellist” who failed to appear. The other chap, Seán Manchester, did appear but not with any intention of inflicting harm. Quite the reverse.
See: http://friendsofbishopseanmanchester.blogspot.co.uk/2010/10/raising-devil.html
Only you’re not a co-admin of my society ‘Vebjorn’ or should that be Sean Manchester? Please ignore the link to his fake clone group guys. His ‘group’ that was only created after I booted him off mine for trolling and derailing topics. It’s only purpose it seems is to distract attention and stifle support for the genuine society which of course can be found here:
http://www.facebook.com/groups/thcvas/
Redmond McWilliams is a personal friend of David Farrant who colludes in Farrant’s vendetta against Seán Manchester who unsurprisingly supports the Facebook group identified by Vebjørn Hästehufvud.
Regarding the Kentishtowner article, Stephen Emms provides only David Farrant’s account of what happened with links to Farrant’s website while totally ignoring Seán Manchester’s acccount, as told by the man himself, and website. Seán Manchester led the investigation into the case of the Highgate Vampire from start to finish and is the author of “The Highgate Vampire” (British Occult Society, 1985; Gothic Press, 1991). He has also contributed and featured in scores of film documentaries and television programmes about the case.
http://www.gothicpress.freeserve.co.uk/Highgate%20Vampire%20Book.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xeXqm3ItmrU
David Farrant contrived an infamous persona where necromantic diabolism overshadowed his earlier attempts to mimic Seán Manchester.
We are all familiar with the outcome, or, at least, we should be.
How depressing to witness Farrant still manipulating the press all these years later, despite everything we now know about his charlatanry (about which more can be discovered at the link below).
http://vampirologist.blogspot.co.uk/
More lies coming from the foaming mouth of our resident troll. While I might be a personal friend of David Farrant and help administrate a facebook group on the Highgate Vampire case (which I DID found), I am not party to any such feud. A very one sided feud I hasten to add that was the creation of one rather bitter old pensioner who spends all his waking hours perpetuating and coordinating it from his study in Bournemouth. And when he’s not busy doing that he is stalking, trolling and intimidating his critics. Make no mistake, ‘British Occult Society’ is none other than Sean Manchester himself. He has a well known (and cowardly) penchant for speaking via a legion of similarly ostentatious and grandiose aliases rather then man to man. A man so desperate to sell his garage load of unsold books that he is even plugging it rather shamelessly on here!
He is to be avoided at all costs.
‘Vebjørn Hästehufvud’ is another of these aliases he uses btw.
Redmond McWilliams’ friend David Farrant (born in 1946) of Muswell Hill, London N10, is surely an “old pensioner” himself. So why McWilliams of Morden, London SM4, is making an issue of age is curious, to say the least. The foaming at the mouth and trolling self-evidently manifests with Redmond McWilliams and not the British Occult Society (or indeed Vebjørn Hästehufvud).
Seán Manchester was the President of the British Occult Society from 21 June 1967 to 8 August 1988. Though he is not so prominent in BOS projects these days he nevertheless remains an important figurehead. The BOS comprises a remnant of ex-members of the original organisation that was dissolved in 1988, some of whom are expert in the Highgate Vampire case and can speak about it with some considerable authority.
Seán Manchester himself no longer gives interviews about the case, loathe to repeat himself over and over again, having exhausted all there is to say on the matter from his own perspective.
http://www.gothicpress.freeserve.co.uk/LastInterview.htm
His ecclesial duties and devotions take precedence over media projects, and the internet is something he has little time for. He will, when time allows, however, answer people’s questions on his blog:
http://therightreverendseanmanchester.blogspot.co.uk/
Contrary to Redmond McWilliams’ vindictive and spurious allegations, Seán Manchester does not have a “garage load of unsold books,” but a handful of each of his titles held at his office for the purpose signing and dedicating to people as and when requested. Nor does he have a “penchant for speaking via a legion of similarly ostentatious and grandiose aliases.” That description puts us more in mind of Redmond McWilliams’ close friend David Farrant who is notorious for getting others to do his dirty work.
http://www.holygrail-church.fsnet.co.uk/Books.htm
Any reader of these comments from both camps must decide who is to “be avoided at all costs.” We would merely remind them that Redmond McWilliams’ friend stands head and shoulders above the rest when it comes to stalking and harassment. Farrant has spent the last forty-three years disseminating gross defamation about one particular person; seeking to cause him maximum insult and injury. Family, friends, colleagues and acquaintances of this man have not been immune from Farrant’s malice. Many have received poisonous pamphlets through the post as well as some of them being maligned themselves in these hate tracts which often include a plethora of stolen images. Farrant’s life-long target for malicious abuse is the intended victim of his “Bishop Bonkers” T-shirt, as illustrated at this link: http://www.holygrail-church.fsnet.co.uk/FarrantFacts_files/image001.jpg
The infantile insult on Farrant’s T-shirt is aimed at the well known author and exorcist Seán Manchester (a consecrated bishop since 1991) who first met Farrant in 1970, but has had no contact with him since the 1980s when their last meeting took place following threats made by Farrant in the post.
Readers letters to the Hampstead & Highgate Express in early 1970 included reports of a ghost wearing a top hat that had been seen in Swains Lane and just inside the gates at Highgate Cemetery. With the benefit of hindsight we now know that some of these letters bore the names and addresses of close acquaintances and personal friends of Farrant and that the “ghost” was, in fact, Farrant himself, as seen at this link: http://www.holygrail-church.fsnet.co.uk/FarrantFacts_files/image006.jpg
Things began to spiral downwards at an alarming rate as Farrant turned to what ostensibly appeared to be diabolism, but in truth was just further attention-seeking for the sake of the media. He nonetheless engaged in theatrical stunts of an occult nature in churchyards, cemeteries, woods and derelict houses which took on an increasingly satanic appearance. This led to him being charged, tried and convicted for offences which included malicious vandalism to tombs, interfering with and offering indignity to remains of the dead through the use of black magic, and attempting to pervert the course of justice by threatening police witnesses with voodoo death dolls impaled with pins. By which time Seán Manchester decided to get to know Farrant properly for the purpose of discovering exactly what was going on and tried to and resolve whatever lay behind the enmity being evinced toward him. This occurred some time after Farrant had invited what he describes as a “satanic force” to enter him in a nocturnal necromantic ritual he claims to have staged at Highgate Cemetery in 1971 with a naked female. The ritual is described at length by Farrant in an article he wrote while serving a four years’ eight months’ prison sentence. It was published in the fourth issue of New Witchcraft magazine. The person Seán Manchester discovered was nevertheless a fraud who believed solely in his own self-aggrandisement and the amount of newsprint his manufactured stunts might achieve; a man, moreover, who did not believe in his own rectitude. So, rather than resolve anything, Seán Manchester getting to know Farrant only served to make matters worse because Farrant understood all too well that Seán Manchester was someone who was aware of his insincerity and charlatanry. Furthermore, Seán Manchester has not ruled out the possibility that by engaging in theatrical Satanism and phoney witchcraft for the benefit of the media Farrant might very well have become possessed by something demonic in the process, especially when going through the motions of a satanic evocation where blood was drawn in Highgate Cemetery.
“Any reader of these comments from both camps must decide who is to “be avoided at all costs.””
It’s all of you, right?
How very predictable of you Mr Manchester. As soon as you’re backed into a corner you flood the page with large tracts of your usual cut-and-paste drivel; the contents of which we have seen many times before. All in an attempt to change the subject and deflect attention from your weak arguments.
And with your as usual heavy handed, knee jerk responses show (yet again) that you’ve completely missed the point. Mr. Emmes has given a fair assessment of the Highgate Vampire case in his short blog, and has acknowledged the role both yourself and David have played in it. He has even gone as far as including your book in the further reading box at the bottom of the text. But that’s obviously not good enough for you is it? For not only has he committed the cardinal sin of mentioning David Farrant in the same breath, he has been pretty sparing with your narrative. Why else would you be shamelessly plugging your book and posting a link to one of your ‘last’ interviews. I think Mr Emmes referring to the case as a ‘fascinating example of modern day folklore’ should have been a clue to you. He has maintained an open mind on the case throughout and bearing in mind the profound lack of corroborative evidence for a supernatural phenomenon at Highgate cemetery that was a wise approach to adopt.
You won’t find many rational people prepared to swallow your Stoker/Wheatley pastiche (or should that be rip-off? as a true account of a modern day vampire hunt in any shape or form. Certainly not a hunt for real vampires any way. When thinking about you one is curiously reminded of Don Quixote forever ’tilting at windmills.’ For those unfamiliar with the phrase it’s an English idiom which means attacking imaginary enemies. The word “tilt”, in this context, comes from jousting. The phrase is sometimes used to describe confrontations where adversaries are incorrectly perceived, or to courses of action that are based on misinterpreted or misapplied heroic, romantic, or idealistic justifications. It may also connote an importune, unfounded and vain effort against confabulated adversaries for a vain goal.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tilting_at_windmills
Sounds familiar?
Says Sean Manchester: “Redmond McWilliams’ friend David Farrant (born in 1946) of Muswell Hill, London N10, is surely an “old pensioner” himself. So why McWilliams of Morden, London SM4, is making an issue of age is curious, to say the least. The foaming at the mouth and trolling self-evidently manifests with Redmond McWilliams and not the British Occult Society (or indeed Vebjørn Hästehufvud).”
Don’t you think the partial inclusion of our London postcodes was just a little bit OTT in response to me stating that you live in a large coastal town? Something that is public knowledge? And you scoff at my assertion that you are a troll and a stalker? Your typical penchant for Freudian transference won’t work on me so don’t even bother old bean. Still one has to be thankful that you have on this occasion refrained from including my sexual orientation and relationship status!
How very predictable of Redmond McWilliams. As soon as he’s backed into a corner he employs the tired stratagem, originating with his accomplice David Farrant, of maliciously accusing those refuting his false allegations of being Seán Manchester. This he hopes will distract from the central issue which is his poisonous claims, straight from his friend Farrant, and out rebuttal. He has no argument so he wants the debate to end in flames. We have witnessed this strategy time and time again.
The British Occult Society has no cause to mention McWilliams’ sexual preference or relationshio status because he has not raised it until now, and all we are doing is rebutting his attacks. Previously, he unnecessarily identified a coastal town close to Seán Manchester’s private retreat. It is not “public knowledge” as he falsely claims, not that McWilliams isn’t trying desperately to make it so. Hence we identified the south London district where McWilliams resides. He cannot expect to launch attacks without some sort of response in kind. He is trying to up the ante, but it will get him nowhere because he is clearly doing the very things he accuses others of doing. In other words, if he’ll pardon the pun, he is exposing himself.
Stephen Emms “has even gone as far as including” the first edition of “The Highgate Vampire” by Seán Manchester which has been out of print for over a quarter of a century! No mention is made at all by Stephen Emms of the Gothic Press revised and enlarged edition which is in print and available.
What is so wrong with us mentioning “The Highgate Vampire” book in comments following an article about the case of the Highgate Vampire?.
“Certainly not a hunt for real vampires any way,” says Redmond McWilliams. Perhaps he needs to inform the friend he colludes with on a daily basis and who describes himself as the “President” of McWilliams’ Highgate Cemetery Vampire Facebook group?
See image at this link: http://www.holygrail-church.fsnet.co.uk/Rhoads_files/image002.jpg
This is what David Farrant is quoted as saying in an article in the Hampstead & Highgate Express, 6 March 1970:
“Mr David Farrant, 24, who reported seeing a ghost last month, returned to the spot last weekend and discovered a dead fox. ‘Several other foxes have also been found dead in the cemetery,’ he said at his home in Priestwood Mansions, Archway Road, Highgate. ‘The odd thing is there was no outward sign of how they died. Much remains unexplained, but what I have recently learnt all points to the vampire theory as being the most likely answer. Should this be so, I for one am prepared to pursue it, taking whatever means might be necessary so that we can all rest’.”
Farrant reconstructed his midnight arrest in Highgate Cemetery on the night of 17 August 1970 for a BBC television interview transmitted on 15 October 1970 where he is seen stalking among the tombstones with a cross in one hand and a wooden stake in the other. The interviewer only asks Farrant about “this vampire,” a description that is not challenged. At no point does Farrant say “I don’t believe in vampires.” Then there is the episode with Barry Simmons where David Farrant entered Highgate Cemetery with the journalist and a photographer to demonstrate his “vampire stalking” technique. This is what was reported by Barrie Simmons, accompanied by a selection of photographs showing Farrant stalking a vampire with a Christian cross and a sharpened wooden stake in the Evening News, 16 October 1970:
“I joined a macabre hunt among the desecrated graves and tombs for the vampire of Highgate Cemetery. … David, 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. David stalked among the vaults, past the graves, in the bushes and by the walls. When we had finished he started stalking all over again.”
Another image of Farrant hunting a vampire: http://www.holygrail-church.fsnet.co.uk/Brautigam_files/image004.jpg
Handbags at dawn! Or just before dawn if you’re a vampire. Funny how a schoolboy prank by some kids from William Ellis has turned into a pseudo-occult slanging match between a people who obvioulsy weren’t privy to the joke. Hilarious! Where’s the garlic?
No ‘handbags’ here Masterof the ceremonies! But it seems that I am getting ‘hit’ with Mr Manchester’s yet again! I am not going to answer your ‘cut and pasted’ comments, Sean; you are simply not worth entering into public conversation with. I really don’t know why you bother Sean. Everybody knows that its really YOU!
David Farrant, President, British Psychic and Occult Society (BPOS).
David Farrant resorts to his familiar tactic of concentrating all attention on attacking a personality instead of dealing with the real issue, ie Stephen Emms’ “Tale of the Highgate Vampire” and Farrant’s charlatanry in that connection.
It is not a question of “cut and paste” comments, and our comments are clearly no such thing; it is a case of what is on public record. Obviously when quoting such archived sources they remain as they are and always have been at source. They cannot alter.
David Farrant is not “getting hit” by Seán Manchester. He is being confronted by the British Occult Society about his own contradictory claims.
For example, when recently interviewed by Emma Gibson for something called “The Butcher’s Apron,”* Farrant refers disparagingly (as he invariably always does when being interviewed) about Seán Manchester and emphasises, in a manner obviously intended to ridicule, that Seán Manchester removed from his trousers a wooden stake (on a television programme). Farrant is hypocritically describing himself. See 3 minutes 5 seconds into this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-VcUq-ohXVY He can be seen removing from inside his trousers a cross and stake.
* http://www.thebutchersapron.co.uk/category/08-desire/
Seán Manchester was actually demonstrating on the television programme referred to by Farrant how such manifestations as vampires were traditionally despatched according to vampire lore. When Farrant withdrew a sharpened wooden stake from his trousers he was reconstructing for BBC television what he was doing on the night of his arrest at Highgate Cemetery in the previous August when, five months after Seán Manchester’s appearance on Thames Television (and ignoring the public warning issued to him that individuals should not take matters into their own hands), Farrant was found by police with a cross and stake in his possession at midnight in Highgate’s graveyard. Farrant was completely alone. He claimed to be in pursuit of the legendary vampire said to haunt Highgate Cemetery.
He originally pleaded guilty, but later changed his plea to one of not guilty after being held on remand at Brixton Prison for the remainder of that month. Charged with being in an enclosed area for an unlawful purspose, Farrant was eventually acquitted and released (as Highgate Cemetery does not qualify as being an “enclosed area”).
The Daily Express, 19 August 1970, reported that Farrant told the police (as read out in court from his statement): “My intention was to search out the supernatural being and destroy it by plunging the stake in its heart.”
Farrant later reconstructed what he was doing on the night of his arrest for BBC television’s “24 Hours,” 15 October 1970, which included him brandishing a cross and stake he had secreted down his trousers. While inside prison, Farrant had written to Seán Manchester to request support from the British Occult Society to which Farrant owed no connection. He was visited while on remand and told that the Society could not possibly countenance his behaviour. Soon afterwards, Farrant began to falsely associate himself with the BOS, which immediately led to rebuttals appearing in various newspapers.
It was only a matter of time before David Farrant began to fraudulently describe himself as the “president of the British Occult Society.”
http://www.holygrail-church.fsnet.co.uk/Shroudeater_files/image013.jpg
Stephen Emms’ article on the Highgate ‘Vampire’ (my quotes on ‘vampire’ are deliberate) give an interesting synopsis of events at Highgate Cemetery all those years ago.
One point that I feel could have been made clearer, is the night I was arrested in HC ‘armed with a cross and a stake’ – according to the fabricated police evidence, at least. In fact, a group of members from The British Psychic and Occult Society (then called the British Occult Society until its name was changed in 1983) had gone to Highgate Cemetery to perform a séance to attempt to make psychic communication with this earthbound spectre employing the use of a medium. This séance was interrupted by the police who had been ‘keeping an eye’ on the cemetery as a result of serious vandalism which involved individuals opening the old Victorian coffins inside the vaults and driving stakes through the corpses inside. Interestingly, this turn of events began in March 1970 after a disturbed individual had appeared on the London ITV “Today” programme and – after pulling a wooden stake which he had concealed down the back of his trousers – went on to instruct listeners about how to ‘stake a vampire’. All marvelous, I suppose . . . for lovers of fiction!
After hearing the police approaching from the back wall of the cemetery, members split up into two’s and headed back to the main gate where the two cars we had arrived in were parked on the forecourt. I had the misconceived idea that if I could reach the back wall of the cemetery (from which the police were approaching) I could get out that way, as I knew a family who lived in South Grove whose garden backed onto the back wall of Highgate Cemetery.
But I was caught in a flask light and arrested carrying a small portable tape recorder, camera, candles and incense, a small Celtic cross (which would have been used as symbols of protection had the séance been successful) and a pointed wooden stake engraved with magical symbolism to which was attached a white cord. (In fact, the purpose of this ‘stake’ was to cast a precise Circle of Protection on the ground using the cord for the required measurement).
I was taken to Kentish Town Police Station, and here was subjected to some ridicule from the police, who kept asking me if I really believed in ‘vampires’ as this other person had previously expounded on the ITV programme. It was here that I saw all the items I had been carrying lined up on a desk.
But in an attempt to protect the other people present from unwanted publicity, I gave a false name, and I also refused to give my address in Highgate. (Had I done otherwise, the police would have simply gone to my address in Highgate and there discovered all the membership lists giving the name’s and addresses of Society members).
Seeing that I was being decidedly un-cooperative, the Inspector in charge of the case approached myself, and said he appreciated I was trying to protect the others involved, but as I had refused to give my address, they (the police) had no choice but to keep me in custody overnight. He went on to say, that if I just pleaded guilty to trespass in the morning, the whole case would be over in a minute and I would ‘just get a warning for trespass’. I accepted this, just wanting the case to be over quickly with the minimum embarrassment to other people.
However, the next morning at Clerkenwall Magistrates’ Court ( and after I had pleaded guilty to his trespass suggestion), this Inspector produced a written statement he had written out allegedly reflecting what I had said to the Police. This statement had not been signed by myself.
He told the Court that there had been serious vandalism at Highgate Cemetery in the previous few months, which involved people going into the cemetery and ‘staking corpses’. He said that he believed that I was one of those people responsible.
He then stated to the Court that I had told him that I was looking for the ‘King Vampire’ of the Undead, and that I intended to search through the coffins (opening them if necessary) and when I found it I intended to drive my wooden stake through its heart, and then ‘run away’!
To ‘back this up’ he produced the small cross and the stake, but none of the other items I had been carrying. These had ‘mysteriously disappeared’ and had not been produced in evidence.
Ironically perhaps, because I had pleaded guilty to the charge, all this was being believed and got picked up what this police officer said being protected by qualified Court privilege.
Once I realized what had happened, I immediately changed my plea to ‘not guilty’ and gave the Court my real name determined to fight the case. This I did, and a couple of months later (after an adjournment) I came back to Court to fight the case.
The actual charge was . . . “Being in an enclosed area for an unlawful purpose”. This ‘purpose’ (at least, according to the police) was to open coffins to ‘stake a vampire’.
The magistrate refused to accept this intention, which was the main element of the Police charge. He said he could not accept that I could intend to break open coffins with a flimsy piece of wood!
So that is how the myth of myself being a ‘vampire hunter’ really started! Ironically I do not even believe in the existence of ‘vampires’ as portrayed by Hammer Horror films. There may exist one or two cranks who believe that they do, but that’s entirely different matter.
I am just a simple psychic investigator, nothing more than that!
Just wanted to set the record straight Stephen, as there are one or two ‘nutcases’ out there who would try and have people here believe otherwise.
David Farrant, President, BPOS.
Dear Bill,
You apparently seem to be aware of some children from your old school playing pranks. Who are they? By the way, are you still an anarchist?
For the record, neither David Farrant nor anyone who was seriously involved in the Highgate Vampire case went to William Ellis School.
Was this your idea of whimsy?
Oddly enough, you do have some things in common with Seán Manchester.
You are both photographers (he had been running his Islington-based studio for a couple of years when you were born in the mid-Sixties).
You both have a thing for Shakespeare (he was a member of a London-based Shakespeare Repertory Company in the early Sixties).
You have both worked in professional music bands (he performed in rock and modern jazz bands, principally as a tenor saxophonist).
You have both been involved in supernatural/horror film projects (he starred in several art house films, including two French films with Sylvaine Charlet, directed by Guy Godefroy for Lancelot Productions).
You were both married barely a month apart in 1987 (you to the Nordic Bodil Magdalena and him to the Celtic Sarah Jane, a drama and dance graduate).
So you have far more in common than you might at first have imagined. Why not concentrate on that instead of making spurious juvenile quips?
Sincerely,
BOS
“… after a disturbed individual had appeared on the London ITV “Today” programme and – after pulling a wooden stake which he had concealed down the back of his trousers.” – David Farrant
3 minutes 5 seconds into this video David Farrant can be seen pulling out a wooden stake which he had concealed down the back of his trousers: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-VcUq-ohXVY
“… went on to instruct listeners about how to ‘stake a vampire’.” – David Farrant
Seán Manchester told how vampires were traditionally despatched (on Thames Television in March 1970). David Farrant was televised in October 1970 by the BBC reconstructing his vampire hunt in August 1970. Farrant was demonstrating for viewers exactly what he was doing on the night of his arrest in Highgate Cemetery on the night of 17 August 1970. Hence he was filmed stalking about the graves with a cross in one hand and a stake in the other, and a Roman Catholic rosary around his neck.
An image showing Farrant’s vampire hunting reconstruction can be viewed at this link: http://www.holygrail-church.fsnet.co.uk/Farrow_files/image001.jpg
When interviewed by BBC reporter Laurence Picethly, after demonstrating his vampire hunting technique for viewers, Farrant gave the following answers:
Laurence Picethly: “Have you ever seen this vampire?”
David Farrant: “I have seen it, yes. I saw it last February, and saw it on two occasions.”
Laurence Picethly: “What was it like?”
David Farrant: “It took the form of a tall, grey figure, and it … [pauses] … seemed to glide off the path without making any noise.”
Earlier in the same year, Farrant’s initial letter to the Hampstead & Highgate Express (published on 6 February 1970) claimed as many as three sightings. Today, however, he tells interviewers that he only had one sighting.
“After hearing the police approaching from the back wall of the cemetery, members split up into two’s and headed back to the main gate where the two cars we had arrived in were parked on the forecourt.” – David Farrant
There is absolutely no evidence to support this latter-day revisionism. David Farrant was completely on his own when he was arrested around midnight on 17 August 1970. The police found nobody else, and for a great many years afterwards Farrant made no claim of being accompanied on that night.
“In fact, the purpose of this ‘stake’ was to cast a precise Circle of Protection on the ground using the cord for the required measurement.” – David Farrant
So what were these press photographs all about? http://www.holygrail-church.fsnet.co.uk/Farrow_files/image007.jpg We heard nothing about the stake being used for anything other than vampire impalement until 1991 – twenty-one years later – when Farrant began printing his self-published pamphlets in an attempt to whitewash his past while also attacking his enemies. http://www.holygrail-church.fsnet.co.uk/Today.htm
“But in an attempt to protect the other people present from unwanted publicity, I gave a false name, and I also refused to give my address in Highgate.” – David Farrant
Not one person has come forward over almost half a century to say they were one of these “other people” whom Farrant was supposedly protecting from “unwanted publicity.” His address at the time was the coal bunker of a friend, as confirmed by anyone who knew him and Farrant himself when interviewed in the Seventies. This coal bunker did not contain any “membership lists” because there was no organisation to which Farrant belonged. Again, those who knew him at the time will confirm this to be the case. http://www.holygrail-church.fsnet.co.uk/Shroudeater_files/image006.jpg
“So that is how the myth of myself being a ‘vampire hunter’ really started!” – David Farrant
This is how the myth of David Farrant being a vampire hunter really started: http://www.holygrail-church.fsnet.co.uk/24Hours.htm http://www.holygrail-church.fsnet.co.uk/Shroudeater_files/image004.jpg http://www.holygrail-church.fsnet.co.uk/Shroudeater_files/image005.jpg http://www.holygrail-church.fsnet.co.uk/Shroudeater_files/image009.jpg http://friendsofbishopseanmanchester.blogspot.co.uk/2011/02/false-witness.html
“I am just a simple psychic investigator, nothing more than that!” – David Farrant
So why did the media describe Farrant as a black magician and a phoney witch? http://www.gothicpress.freeserve.co.uk/Archive_files/image003.jpg http://friendsofbishopseanmanchester.blogspot.co.uk/2011/07/post-script.html http://friendsofbishopseanmanchester.blogspot.co.uk/2010/10/spiritual-regression.html
The individual writing under the alias ‘British Occult Society’ is, of course, Mr. Sean Manchester, as everybody really knows. This was the original name of the British Psychic and Occult Society (BPOS) until we decided to change our name back in 1983. There was a reason for this which I will not go into here, but basically a particular individual had his membership cancelled for bringing the Society’s name into disrepute for attempting to turn Highgate Cemetery’s ghost into a ‘blood-sucking vampire’. He was doing this quite literally, and continually sending his invented stories to the local and national Press which in turn were eventually picked up by television.
Stephen Emms perhaps sums up this person’s antics quite admirably when he writes in his article here:
“Farrant and Manchester persisted in their hunt for otherworldly presences, with the former being found soon after by police carrying crucifix and wooden stake, and the latter claiming (in his own book) that he forced open a family vault and was about to drive a stake through a body – but was deterred, at the last minute, by a companion. Thank goodness for that.”
In fact, Manchester describes going to Highgate Cemetery one day in August with a group of unnamed assistants after being led to a particular vault by a sleep walking girl called ‘Lusia’. She stops outside the heavy iron doors, which is enough to convince Manchester that the vampire sleeps inside! The doors will not budge, so they all put their shoulders to it to force entry. Manchester sees that there is one coffin too many, so he forces of the lid and there lies the Highgate ‘vampire’.
But lets look at what Mr. Manchester actually says about this in his self-published book :
“My torch lit up in unnerving revelation the sleeping form of something that had long been dead; something nevertheless gorged and stinking with the life-blood of others, fresh clots of which still adhered to the edge of the mouth whose fetid breath made me sick to my stomach. The glazed eyes stared horribly – almost mocking me, almost knowing that my efforts to destroy it would be thwarted. Under the parchment-like skin a faint bluish tinge could be detected. The face was the colour and appearance of a three-day-old corpse”. [The Highgate Vampire by Mr Sean Manchester 1st Ed Page 55)
Mr.Manchester fails to point out in his narrative that he and his group of ‘unnamed assistants’ entered this vault illegally and had made no previous attempts to obtain permission from the cemetery authorities to gain entry. This fact was verified at the time by the then cemetery superintendant, Mr.William Law, who said that nobody had permission to enter any vaults without the express permission of the cemetery authorities and the owners. Mr. Manchester had obtained neither, and this admission that he makes in his book is a clear indication that he was breaking the law.
Mr Manchester seems genuinely confused about the night of my arrest in August 1970 when the police tried to maintain I was ‘hunting a vampire’, despite the fact that he wasn’t even there! In a clear attempt to re-write history (i.e. my statement that the stake I was carrying when arrested was attached to a piece of cord for the purposes of casting a protective Circle), he is now trying to allege that I was carrying this stake to impale a vampire! Sorry Sean, wrong yet again! When I was applying for bail after being arrested (but before that case came to Court for a full Hearing) police produced some of the items I had been carrying (but only some of them) in open Court.
The Press carried the story of my bail application thus . . .
“Det-Sgt Neville Brown produced in evidence a large wooden crucifix, a sharpened wooden stake and a PIECE OF ROPE.” [my capitols]
(Hornsey Journal, August 28th, 1970).
Actually, it was not ‘rope’ but a length of white cord; but that point is really academic.
I say once again that I do not accept the existence of blood-sucking vampires, although Mr. Manchester clearly does. He claims, for example, that he eventually tracked down this ‘vampire’ in 1973 (after it had apparently ‘escaped’ from the vault in Highgate Cemetery) where it had taken up residence (coffin and all) in the cellars of an old deserted mansion on the boarders of Crouch End. Again these people are unnamed (except for a friend he calls ‘Athur’), but they drag the coffin out into the overgrown back garden and there set light to it after fetching petrol from the car. The creature gave out an almighty roar (‘as if from the bowels of hell’) and dissolves to slime in the bottom of the casket. So presumably then this was the end of the Highgate Vampire?
Well not quite! For Manchester goes on to describe in his book, how the Highgate Vampire had a disciple called ‘Lusia’ who is still roaming the district, and was buried in The Great Northern London Cemetery. Manchester conducts a black magic ritual at her graveside on night armed with a stake from within a protective Circle in which he had a small burning.
Sure enough, Lusia turns up but, seeing Manchester with his stake, immediately changes into a ‘giant spider’ (‘the size of a full grown cat’). Manchester manages to stake her through the heart with a flaming wooden stake, whereupon she lets out a piercing scream and catches alight. Mr. Manchester collapses back into the Circle sobbing uncontrollably (Lusia had been his girlfriend in real life he reminds us in the book) and when dawn breaks he sees the result of his night’s handiwork. For impaled on the stake was . . .
“It was poor Lusia, no longer the devil’s Undead, but one of God’s true dead”.
Is it really necessary to say any more!??
David Farrant, President, BPOS.
David Farrant began to falsely associate himself with the British Occult Society circa 1972, which immediately led to rebuttals appearing in various newspapers. It was only a matter of time before Farrant began to fraudulently describe himself as the “president of the British Occult Society.” Yet when he appeared on television (twice) in 1970 he made no such claim. Seán Manchester, on the other hand, was invariably captioned “President of the British Occult Society” whenever he appeared on television. Farrant never challenged this because it would have been peposterous for him to do so. He was living in the coal bunker of a friend at the time and owed absolutey no connection to the BOS.
Readers letters to the Hampstead & Highgate Express in early 1970 included reports of a ghost wearing a top hat that had been seen in Swains Lane and just inside the gates at Highgate Cemetery. With the benefit of hindsight we now know that some of these letters bore the names and addresses of acquaintances of David Farrant. Fraudulent letters were sent to the Hampstead & Highgate Express, 13 February 1970, using the names and addresses of Farrant’s friends Audrey Connely and Kenneth Frewin. Farrant wrote those letters in order to give his hoax some credibility. He used the names and addresses of friends with their consent. He used his close friend Nava Grunberg’s address in Hampstead Lane, but her name was changed to a pseudonym. He also used Nava Grunberg, now adopting the nom-de-plume ”Nava Arieli,” when she used an address in Rosslyn Hill, Hampstead, belonging to a friend of hers.
Others might have witnessed Farrant wearing white face make-up in his familiar black mackintosh pretending to be a ghost. It has since been confirmed that he wore an old grey topper and ghostly make-up to convince local people that the cemetery was haunted. Then Farrant heard tales of the legendary vampire in pubs he frequented and decided to board what he perceived to be a publicity bandwagon. The rest, of course, is history. The vampire sightings and experiences by others were genuine enough for the most part. Farrant was not. His part in the saga was utterly fraudulent. He pretended to be a “vampire hunter” for the next few months before turning his attention to malefic pseudo-occultism which guaranteed a far bigger return in the publicity stakes. This quickly led to criminal convictions which included indecency in Monken Hadley churchyard under the Ecclesiastic Courts Jurisdiction Act 1860. Victoria Jervis was also found guilty. Her revelations under oath when called as a witness during Farrant’s Old Bailey trials two years later are damning, to say the least. This is what she said:
“I have tried to put most of what happened out of my mind. The false letters I wrote to a local paper were to stimulate publicity for the accused. I saw him almost every weekend in the second half of 1972 and I went to Spain with him for a fortnight at the end of June that same year. I was arrested with him in Monken Hadley Churchyard. That incident upset me very much. Afterwards, my doctor prescribed tranquilisers for me.”
Facing David Farrant in court to address him, Victoria Jervis added:
“You have photographed me a number of times in your flat with no clothes on. One photograph was published in 1972 with a false caption claiming I was a member of your Society, which I never was.”On another occasion, she recalled, how she had written psuedonymously to a local newspaper at Farrant’s request “to stimulate publicity for the accused.”
Back in 1972, during the indecency case, “Mr P J Bucknell, prosecuting, said Mr Farrant had painted circles on the ground, lit with candles, and had told reporters and possibly the police of what he was doing. ‘This appears to be a sordid attempt to obtain publicity,’ he said.” (Hampstead & Highgate Express, 24 November 1972).
Speaking at the April 1996 Fortean Times Convention, Maureen Speller commented: “The programme came up with ‘His investigations had far reaching and disturbing consequences’ which I said meant he’d been arrested a lot. Strangely enough, this is more or less what he said. God, I felt old being the only member of [my] group who could remember this nutter being arrested every few weeks.”
“The wife of self-styled occult priest David Farrant told yesterday of giggles in the graveyard when the pubs had closed. ‘We would go in, frighten ourselves to death and come out again,’ she told an Old Bailey jury. Attractive Mary Farrant — she is separated from her husband and lives in Southampton — said they had often gone to London’s Highgate Cemetery with friends ‘for a bit of a laugh.’ But they never caused any damage. ‘It was just a silly sort of thing that you do after the pubs shut,’ she said. Mrs Farrant added that her husband’s friends who joined in the late night jaunts were not involved in witchcraft or the occult. She had been called as a defence witness by her 28-year-old husband. They have not lived together for three years.” (The Sun, 21 June 1974).
“All he talked about was his witchcraft. He was very vain.” (Julia Batsford, an ex-girlfriend quoted in the Daily Mail, 26 June 1974).
“Au pair Martine de Sacy has exposed the fantasy world of David Farrant, self-styled high priest of British witchcraft, for whom she posed nude in front of a tomb. Farrant was convicted last week by a jury who heard stories of Satanic rites, vampires and death-worship with girls dancing in a cemetery. Afterwards, 23-year-old Martine said: ‘He was a failure as a lover. In fact, I think his trouble was that he was seeking compensation for this. He was always after publicity and he felt that having all these girls around helped. I’m sure the night he took me to the cemetery had less to do with occultism than his craving to be the centre of something.’ … While Martine told her story in Paris, customers at Farrant’s local — the Prince of Wales in Highgate, London — chuckled over the man they called ‘Birdman.’ One regular said: ‘He used to come in with a parrot on his shoulder. One night he came in with photos of Martine in the nude. We pinched one, and when she next came in, we told her he was selling them at 5p a time. She went through the ceiling.’ … Farrant called his estranged wife Mary, in his defence. She said: ‘We would go in the cemetery with my husband’s friends when the pubs had closed. We would frighten ourselves to death and come out again. It was just a silly sort of thing that you do after the pubs close. Nobody was involved in witchcraft or the occult’.” (News of the World, 30 June 1974).
“I cannot believe for one moment that he is a serious student of the occult. In fact I believe him to be evil and entirely to be deplored.” (Dennis Wheatley, Daily Express, 26 June 1974).
“I think he’s crazy.” (Canon John Pearce Higgins, Daily Express, 26 June 1974).
“But for the results of his actions, this scruffy little witch could be laughed at. But no one can laugh at a man who admits slitting the throat of a live cat before launching a blood-smeared orgy. Or at a man who has helped reduce at least two women to frightened misery.” (Sue Kentish, News of the World, 23 September 1973).
“The jury were shown folders of pictures of naked girls and corpses, and told about a black-clothed altar in Farrant’s flat with a large drawing of a vampire’s face. When questioned, Farrant said: ‘A corpse was needed to talk to spirits of another world’.” (George Hunter & Richard Wright, Daily Express, 26 June 1974).
“The judge said any interference with a corpse during black magic rituals could properly be regarded as a ‘great scandal and a disgrace to religion, decency and morality’.” (The Sun, 26 June 1974).
“Judge Michael Argyle QC passed sentence after reading medical and mental reports. He said that Farrant — self-styled High Priest of the British Occult Society [sic] — had acted ‘quite regardless of the feelings of ordinary people,’ by messing about at Highgate Cemetery.” (Hornsey Journal, 19 July 1974).
In the summer of 1974, David Farrant was convicted of malicious damage in Highgate Cemetery by inscribing black magic symbols on the floor of a mausoleum. Offering indignities to remains of the dead via black magic rites in Highgate Cemetery where photographs were taken of a naked female accomplice amidst tombs. Threatening police witnesses in a separate case where his black magic associate was subsequently found guilty of indecent sexual assault on a young boy. His associate, on his current website, describes himself as a “master of the black arts.” Farrant was also convicted of theft of items from Barnet Hospital where the offender worked briefly as a porter upon his release from Brixton Prison where he had been on remand in August 1970. He was further convicted of possession of a handgun and ammunition kept at his address, which also contained a black magic altar beneath a massive mural of a vampiric face of a horned devil that had featured in various newspapers, not least full front page coverage of the Hornsey Journal, 28 September 1973.
Farrant received a prison sentence of four years and eight months.
Two libel suits brought by him resulted in the News of the World (who had quoted his girlfriend’s claims that his publicity-seeking antics were compensation for him being a failure as a lover) failing to produce their principal defence witness due to Farrant making sure she remained in her native France, and him losing against the Daily Express (who had accused him of being a black magician and also of being insane) where £20,000 court costs were awarded against him. He had also brought suits against Canon Pierce Higgins and Dennis Wheatley (who sadly died prior to the court case) which failed. In the News of the World action, which he won on a technicality, he was awarded the derisory sum of £50 and ordered to pay costs. The newspaper’s star witness who failed to appear for their defence was Martine de Sacy, his ex-girlfriend who had been identified as the naked female in the infamous “nude rituals trial” at the Old Bailey in June 1974. Farrant persuaded her not to appear, causing the News of the World to lose their most important witness.
Farrant’s blatant bandwagoneering was a perverse parody aimed at garnering maximum publicity. It fooled nobody, but, unfortunately, his concoted claims gave the press something sensational, ie “naked virgins,” to write about. This is what an article in the Hampstead & Highgate Express, 15 October 1971, recorded:
“Despite a warning from police that he could be prosecuted, occultist David Farrant said this week he might return to Highgate Cemetery to ‘exorcise a vampire’ and fight a black magic sect. In the early hours of last Friday Mr Farrant, who is founder of the British Occult Society [sic], performed an exorcism ceremony involving six other young men and two naked girls at a chapel in the cemetery. After the ceremony, one of the girls claimed she saw a shadowy figure which Mr Farrant said was the cemetery’s vampire, ‘the king of the undead.’ … Armed with a crucifix, a bible, herbs such as camomile, dill and garlic, and holy water taken from St Joseph’s Church in Highgate Hill, and accompanied by six other society members, he had climbed over the cemetery wall just before midnight … etc.”
Later in the article one of the alleged naked females is identified as Farrant’s girlfriend Martine de Sacy. The newspaper reported: “He denied the ceremony involved sexual practices.” Then it quoted Farrant explaining: “That’s black magic, which involves getting your rewards before you die — wealth, prosperity, sex. Christian belief is that you get your reward after death. The elaborate things involved in the exorcism were purely symbolic, the most important thing was to have people present who believed in God and the bible. The girls were naked as symbols of purity — they were virgins.”
This, at least, is what he had told the Hampstead & Highgate Express in October 1971. Four years later, however, he told readers of New Witchcraft magazine, issue #4, something far removed from the supposed exorcism with naked girls which did not involve sexual practices, as had been fed by him to the Hampstead & Highgate Express. When describing the ceremony in an unedited article penned at the behest of the magazine’s editor from his prison cell, David Farrant now claimed:
“The intrinsic details regarding this part of the ceremony however, must remain secret; suffice it is to say here that the entity (in its now omniscient form) was to be magically induced by the ritual act of blood-letting, then brought to visible appearance through the use of the sex act. … I disrobed the Priestess and myself and, with the consecrated blood, made the secret sigils of the Deity on her mouth, breast, and all the openings of her body. We then lay in the Pentagram and began love-making, all the time visualizing the Satanic Force so that it could — temporarily — take possession of our bodies.”
On his 1975 article, Farrant later recalled (to his friend and collaborator Kevin Demant): “When I had time to spare I wrote a few articles. I sent one to New Witchcraft which was used, and I mean, every single word was used. It was written on old scraps of paper, anything I could get together because obviously, they wouldn’t have given me official writing paper to do that, apart from which, it would have been stopped anyway. That was smuggled out and used. I also wrote one for Penthouse, because … they’d played up the sex angle in court and all the papers were implying … I thought, well, it’s a magazine, they could be half-serious. I mean, bloody hell, it was sold in W H Smiths!”
At this point, Farrant had contrived an infamous persona where necromantic diabolism overshadowed his earlier attempts to mimic Seán Manchester. He adopted a phoney form of witchcraft where he manufactured quasi-satanic stunts for the benefit of the press. These cost him his liberty and he ended up being sentenced to four years and eight months imprisonment in 1974. Though similar publicity stunts ensued upon his release, he would never again catch the attention of the media in the same way as he did prior to and during his notorious trials at the Old Bailey, and he slowly returned to the bandwagon he originally boarded in 1970. Once again, David Farrant began to impersonate Seán Manchester, having publicly eschewed the trappings of manufactured devilry.
In May 2011, Farrant published pictures of himself dressed as a Christian priest carrying a bible. Such impersonation, of course, is illegal in the UK.
Seán Manchester’s London secretary and close friend, Diana Brewester, sadly died of cancer in December 2003, having been harassed and libelled by Farrant in her latter years. Farrant always sends his malicious pamphlets to his victims. One such item contained Diana Brewester’s private address which he published and circulated via the pamphlet. He also published false and disgusting claims about her private sexual life, none of which were true. David Farrant has absolutely no regard for the way he maligns people, steals, lies and causes grief to whomsoever he pleases. Throughout his life he has never shown any remorse for his behaviour and crimes. Indeed, he has always sought to capitalise on them; bragging to the press and regurgitating them in self-published pamphlets crammed with libel and copyright infringement. His entire life has been predicated on the execution of grievances, vendettas and sick pranks. Apart from a couple of weeks as a porter in late 1970, he has lived off state benefits his entire life.
Occupation: (since release on parole from prison in and also prior to imprisonment):
Unemployed (permanently in receipt of state benefits).
Criminal Convictions:
November 1972 (Barnet Magistrates’ Court):
Indecency in Monken Hadley churchyard (Ecclesiastic Courts Jurisdiction Act 1860).
June 1974 (Central Criminal Court, London):
Malicious damage in HighgateCemetery by inscribing black magic symbols on the floor of a mausoleum.
Offering indignities to remains of the dead via black magic rites in HighgateCemetery where photographs were taken of a naked female accomplice amidst tombs.
Threatening police witnesses in separate case where his black magic associate, John Pope, was subsequently found guilty of indecent sexual assault on a boy.
Theft of items from Barnet Hospital where the offender worked briefly as a porter in late 1970.
Possession of a handgun and ammunition kept at Farrant’s address, which also contained a black magic altar beneath a mural of a face of the Devil.
David Farrant began to falsely associate himself with the British Occult Society circa 1972, which immediately led to rebuttals appearing in various newspapers. It was only a matter of time before he began to fraudulently describe himself as the “president of the British Occult Society.” Yet when he appeared on television (twice) in 1970 he made no such claim whatsoever. Seán Manchester, on the other hand, was invariably captioned “President of the British Occult Society” whenever he appeared on television from March 1970 onward. Farrant never challenged this because it would have been preposterous for him to do so. He was living in the coal bunker of a friend at the time and owed absolutey no connection to the British Occult Society.
Readers letters to the Hampstead & Highgate Express in early 1970 included reports of a ghost wearing a top hat that had been seen in Swains Lane and just inside the gates at Highgate Cemetery. With the benefit of hindsight we now know that some of these letters bore the names and addresses of acquaintances of David Farrant. Fraudulent letters were sent to the Hampstead & Highgate Express, 13 February 1970, using the names and addresses of Farrant’s friends Audrey Connely and Kenneth Frewin. Farrant wrote those letters in order to give his hoax some credibility. He used the names and addresses of friends with their consent. He used his close friend Nava Grunberg’s address in Hampstead Lane, but her name was changed to a pseudonym. He also used Nava Grunberg, now adopting the nom-de-plume ”Nava Arieli,” when she used an address in Rosslyn Hill, Hampstead, belonging to a friend of hers.
Others might have witnessed Farrant wearing white face make-up in his familiar black mackintosh pretending to be a ghost. It has since been confirmed that he wore an old grey topper and ghostly make-up to convince local people that the cemetery was haunted. Then Farrant heard tales of the legendary vampire in pubs he frequented and decided to board what he perceived to be a publicity bandwagon. The rest, of course, is history. The vampire sightings and experiences by others were genuine enough for the most part. Farrant was not. His part in the saga was utterly fraudulent. He pretended to be a “vampire hunter” for the next few months before turning his attention to malefic pseudo-occultism which guaranteed a far bigger return in the publicity stakes. This quickly led to criminal convictions which included indecency in Monken Hadley churchyard under the Ecclesiastic Courts Jurisdiction Act 1860. Victoria Jervis was also found guilty. Her revelations under oath when called as a witness during Farrant’s Old Bailey trials two years later are damning, to say the least. This is what she said:
“I have tried to put most of what happened out of my mind. The false letters I wrote to a local paper were to stimulate publicity for the accused. I saw him almost every weekend in the second half of 1972 and I went to Spain with him for a fortnight at the end of June that same year. I was arrested with him in Monken Hadley Churchyard. That incident upset me very much. Afterwards, my doctor prescribed tranquilisers for me.”
Facing David Farrant in court to address him, Victoria Jervis added:
“You have photographed me a number of times in your flat with no clothes on. One photograph was published in 1972 with a false caption claiming I was a member of your Society, which I never was.”On another occasion, she recalled, how she had written psuedonymously to a local newspaper at Farrant’s request “to stimulate publicity for the accused.”
Back in 1972, during the indecency case, “Mr P J Bucknell, prosecuting, said Mr Farrant had painted circles on the ground, lit with candles, and had told reporters and possibly the police of what he was doing. ‘This appears to be a sordid attempt to obtain publicity,’ he said.” (Hampstead & Highgate Express, 24 November 1972).
Speaking at the April 1996 Fortean Times Convention, Maureen Speller commented: “The programme came up with ‘His investigations had far reaching and disturbing consequences’ which I said meant he’d been arrested a lot. Strangely enough, this is more or less what he said. God, I felt old being the only member of [my] group who could remember this nutter being arrested every few weeks.”
“The wife of self-styled occult priest David Farrant told yesterday of giggles in the graveyard when the pubs had closed. ‘We would go in, frighten ourselves to death and come out again,’ she told an Old Bailey jury. Attractive Mary Farrant — she is separated from her husband and lives in Southampton — said they had often gone to London’s Highgate Cemetery with friends ‘for a bit of a laugh.’ But they never caused any damage. ‘It was just a silly sort of thing that you do after the pubs shut,’ she said. Mrs Farrant added that her husband’s friends who joined in the late night jaunts were not involved in witchcraft or the occult. She had been called as a defence witness by her 28-year-old husband. They have not lived together for three years.” (The Sun, 21 June 1974).
“All he talked about was his witchcraft. He was very vain.” (Julia Batsford, an ex-girlfriend quoted in the Daily Mail, 26 June 1974).
“Au pair Martine de Sacy has exposed the fantasy world of David Farrant, self-styled high priest of British witchcraft, for whom she posed nude in front of a tomb. Farrant was convicted last week by a jury who heard stories of Satanic rites, vampires and death-worship with girls dancing in a cemetery. Afterwards, 23-year-old Martine said: ‘He was a failure as a lover. In fact, I think his trouble was that he was seeking compensation for this. He was always after publicity and he felt that having all these girls around helped. I’m sure the night he took me to the cemetery had less to do with occultism than his craving to be the centre of something.’ … While Martine told her story in Paris, customers at Farrant’s local — the Prince of Wales in Highgate, London — chuckled over the man they called ‘Birdman.’ One regular said: ‘He used to come in with a parrot on his shoulder. One night he came in with photos of Martine in the nude. We pinched one, and when she next came in, we told her he was selling them at 5p a time. She went through the ceiling.’ … Farrant called his estranged wife Mary, in his defence. She said: ‘We would go in the cemetery with my husband’s friends when the pubs had closed. We would frighten ourselves to death and come out again. It was just a silly sort of thing that you do after the pubs close. Nobody was involved in witchcraft or the occult’.” (News of the World, 30 June 1974).
“I cannot believe for one moment that he is a serious student of the occult. In fact I believe him to be evil and entirely to be deplored.” (Dennis Wheatley, Daily Express, 26 June 1974).
“I think he’s crazy.” (Canon John Pearce Higgins, Daily Express, 26 June 1974).
“But for the results of his actions, this scruffy little witch could be laughed at. But no one can laugh at a man who admits slitting the throat of a live cat before launching a blood-smeared orgy. Or at a man who has helped reduce at least two women to frightened misery.” (Sue Kentish, News of the World, 23 September 1973).
“The jury were shown folders of pictures of naked girls and corpses, and told about a black-clothed altar in Farrant’s flat with a large drawing of a vampire’s face. When questioned, Farrant said: ‘A corpse was needed to talk to spirits of another world’.” (George Hunter & Richard Wright, Daily Express, 26 June 1974).
“The judge said any interference with a corpse during black magic rituals could properly be regarded as a ‘great scandal and a disgrace to religion, decency and morality’.” (The Sun, 26 June 1974).
“Judge Michael Argyle QC passed sentence after reading medical and mental reports. He said that Farrant — self-styled High Priest of the British Occult Society [sic] — had acted ‘quite regardless of the feelings of ordinary people,’ by messing about at Highgate Cemetery.” (Hornsey Journal, 19 July 1974).
In the summer of 1974, David Farrant was convicted of malicious damage in Highgate Cemetery by inscribing black magic symbols on the floor of a mausoleum. Offering indignities to remains of the dead via black magic rites in Highgate Cemetery where photographs were taken of a naked female accomplice amidst tombs. Threatening police witnesses in a separate case where his black magic associate was subsequently found guilty of indecent sexual assault on a young boy. His associate, on his current website, describes himself as a “master of the black arts.” Farrant was also convicted of theft of items from Barnet Hospital where the offender worked briefly as a porter upon his release from Brixton Prison where he had been on remand in August 1970. He was further convicted of possession of a handgun and ammunition kept at his address, which also contained a black magic altar beneath a massive mural of a vampiric face of a horned devil that had featured in various newspapers, not least full front page coverage of the Hornsey Journal, 28 September 1973.
Farrant received a prison sentence of four years and eight months.
Two libel suits brought by him resulted in the News of the World (who had quoted his girlfriend’s claims that his publicity-seeking antics were compensation for him being a failure as a lover) failing to produce their principal defence witness due to Farrant making sure she remained in her native France, and him losing against the Daily Express (who had accused him of being a black magician and also of being insane) where £20,000 court costs were awarded against him. He had also brought suits against Canon Pierce Higgins and Dennis Wheatley (who sadly died prior to the court case) which failed. In the News of the World action, which he won on a technicality, he was awarded the derisory sum of £50 and ordered to pay costs. The newspaper’s star witness who failed to appear for their defence was Martine de Sacy, his ex-girlfriend who had been identified as the naked female in the infamous “nude rituals trial” at the Old Bailey in June 1974. Farrant persuaded her not to appear, causing the News of the World to lose their most important witness.
Farrant’s blatant bandwagoneering was a perverse parody aimed at garnering maximum publicity. It fooled nobody, but, unfortunately, his concoted claims gave the press something sensational, ie “naked virgins,” to write about. This is what an article in the Hampstead & Highgate Express, 15 October 1971, recorded:
“Despite a warning from police that he could be prosecuted, occultist David Farrant said this week he might return to Highgate Cemetery to ‘exorcise a vampire’ and fight a black magic sect. In the early hours of last Friday Mr Farrant, who is founder of the British Occult Society [sic], performed an exorcism ceremony involving six other young men and two naked girls at a chapel in the cemetery. After the ceremony, one of the girls claimed she saw a shadowy figure which Mr Farrant said was the cemetery’s vampire, ‘the king of the undead.’ … Armed with a crucifix, a bible, herbs such as camomile, dill and garlic, and holy water taken from St Joseph’s Church in Highgate Hill, and accompanied by six other society members, he had climbed over the cemetery wall just before midnight … etc.”
Later in the article one of the alleged naked females is identified as Farrant’s girlfriend Martine de Sacy. The newspaper reported: “He denied the ceremony involved sexual practices.” Then it quoted Farrant explaining: “That’s black magic, which involves getting your rewards before you die — wealth, prosperity, sex. Christian belief is that you get your reward after death. The elaborate things involved in the exorcism were purely symbolic, the most important thing was to have people present who believed in God and the bible. The girls were naked as symbols of purity — they were virgins.”
This, at least, is what he had told the Hampstead & Highgate Express in October 1971. Four years later, however, he told readers of New Witchcraft magazine, issue #4, something far removed from the supposed exorcism with naked girls which did not involve sexual practices, as had been fed by him to the Hampstead & Highgate Express. When describing the ceremony in an unedited article penned at the behest of the magazine’s editor from his prison cell, David Farrant now claimed:
“The intrinsic details regarding this part of the ceremony however, must remain secret; suffice it is to say here that the entity (in its now omniscient form) was to be magically induced by the ritual act of blood-letting, then brought to visible appearance through the use of the sex act. … I disrobed the Priestess and myself and, with the consecrated blood, made the secret sigils of the Deity on her mouth, breast, and all the openings of her body. We then lay in the Pentagram and began love-making, all the time visualizing the Satanic Force so that it could — temporarily — take possession of our bodies.”
On his 1975 article, Farrant later recalled (to his friend and collaborator Kevin Demant): “When I had time to spare I wrote a few articles. I sent one to New Witchcraft which was used, and I mean, every single word was used. It was written on old scraps of paper, anything I could get together because obviously, they wouldn’t have given me official writing paper to do that, apart from which, it would have been stopped anyway. That was smuggled out and used. I also wrote one for Penthouse, because … they’d played up the sex angle in court and all the papers were implying … I thought, well, it’s a magazine, they could be half-serious. I mean, bloody hell, it was sold in W H Smiths!”
At this point, Farrant had contrived an infamous persona where necromantic diabolism overshadowed his earlier attempts to mimic Seán Manchester. He adopted a phoney form of witchcraft where he manufactured quasi-satanic stunts for the benefit of the press. These cost him his liberty and he ended up being sentenced to four years and eight months imprisonment in 1974. Though similar publicity stunts ensued upon his release, he would never again catch the attention of the media in the same way as he did prior to and during his notorious trials at the Old Bailey, and he slowly returned to the bandwagon he originally boarded in 1970. Once again, David Farrant began to impersonate Seán Manchester, having publicly eschewed the trappings of manufactured devilry.
In May 2011, Farrant published pictures of himself dressed as a Christian priest carrying a bible. Such impersonation, of course, is illegal in the UK.
Seán Manchester’s London secretary and close friend, Diana Brewester, sadly died of cancer in December 2003, having been harassed and libelled by Farrant in her latter years. Farrant always sends his malicious pamphlets to his victims. One such item contained Diana Brewester’s private address which he published and circulated via the pamphlet. He also published false and disgusting claims about her private sexual life, none of which were true. David Farrant has absolutely no regard for the way he maligns people, steals, lies and causes grief to whomsoever he pleases. Throughout his life he has never shown any remorse for his behaviour and crimes. Indeed, he has always sought to capitalise on them; bragging to the press and regurgitating them in self-published pamphlets crammed with libel and copyright infringement. His entire life has been predicated on the execution of grievances, vendettas and sick pranks. Apart from a couple of weeks as a porter in late 1970, he has lived off state benefits his entire life.
Occupation: (since release on parole from prison in and also prior to imprisonment):
Unemployed (permanently in receipt of state benefits).
Criminal Convictions:
November 1972 (Barnet Magistrates’ Court):
Indecency in Monken Hadley churchyard (Ecclesiastic Courts Jurisdiction Act 1860).
June 1974 (Central Criminal Court, London):
Malicious damage in HighgateCemetery by inscribing black magic symbols on the floor of a mausoleum.
Offering indignities to remains of the dead via black magic rites in HighgateCemetery where photographs were taken of a naked female accomplice amidst tombs.
Threatening police witnesses in separate case where his black magic associate, John Pope, was subsequently found guilty of indecent sexual assault on a boy.
Theft of items from Barnet Hospital where the offender worked briefly as a porter in late 1970.
Possession of a handgun and ammunition kept at Farrant’s address, which also contained a black magic altar beneath a mural of a face of the Devil.
What a peculiar character this Mr.Sean Manchester is. He seems to be totally obsessed with myself and has written page upon page upon myself using his false creation of the British Occult Society, conveniently forgetting perhaps, that he was expelled from the official British Occult Society in 1970 and that its name was officially changed to The British Psychic and Occult Society in 1983 to try and curtail a mass of frivolous allegations he was making about my Society then; just as he continues to do on this site today.
He seems to be totally obsessed with myself, and anyone reading his ‘cut and pasted’ allegations on these pages here, can surely see as much. The man is apparently totally obsessed with myself, in some bizarre way!
‘Why’, some people may ask? Well, basically because I have dared to state publicly that I do not believe the fiction he has written about the Highgate ‘vampire’ case; including his claims to have ‘staked’ two vampires – one of whom he claimed changed into a ‘giant spider’. Neither do I believe or accept Mr. Manchester’s additional claims made on BBC Radio to have staked ‘dozens more vampires’ but that he had to keep the identities of these secret to ‘avoid upsetting the relatives’!
I put one of his claims back to him here just yesterday. Mr. Manchester claimed in his ‘vampire book’ published by himself in 1985 and considerably revised in 1992, to have broke into a vault in Highgate Cemetery and to having forced the lid off a coffin inside. He claims to have discovered a ‘sleeping vampire’ inside this coffin, but has always refused to answer my question about just who gave him official permission to break into this vault. He has carefully avoided answering this again in his last post here. I pointed out that his actions were illegal, but still he has not answered this point (and we should remember that it was Manchester himself who first wrote about this escapade in his own books!).
It has been pointed out by the moderators here (somewhere) that that is currently a new film on the Highate Vampire currently in production by Asa Bailey who has also just had a book published on the Highgate Vampire case titled the Vampire of Highgate. This is true, and having met Asa only three weeks ago in my Highgate flat, I can confirm that this film is well into its pre-production stages.
Another person presently working on my part in the Highagte ‘Vampire’ saga is film director Kevin Crace who is currently working on another film titled The Highgate Vampire Chronicles. As a matter of fact, I am being slightly ‘modest’ here. Kevin’s forthcoming film (to be released next year) is about my own involvement in the saga of the Highgate Vampire.
He has already released the soundtrack for this movie on his Website, and with his permission, the link to that is here . . .
The link is to Kevin Crace’s soundtrack is:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vlCSrqSsaJw&feature=c4-overview&list=UUtmG2ZUVnPSRwBupURC4Xnw
Hope you enjoy it
David Farrant, President, BPOS
“I am not going to answer your ‘cut and pasted’ comments; you are simply not worth entering into public conversation with.” – David Farrant, 19 June 2013 at 12:43 am (on this thread)
However …
“… he was expelled from the official British Occult Society in 1970.” – David Farrant
Farrant has this habit, commented on by others down the years, of making sweeping allegations without any supporting evidence. He just expects people to accept his word even though judges, juries, magistrates, editors, journalists, police and people in all walks of life have branded him as a pathological and habitual liar. The fact is that from early 1970 Seán Manchester was captioned on television screens as “President, British Occult Society” (even in programmes where Farrant also appeared separately, albeit less prominently). Farrant was captioned as “David Farrant.” There was no mention of the BOS where he was concerned, and the reason for that is self-evident. Farrant owed absolutely no connection whatsoever to the British Occult Society.
“… its name was officially changed to The British Psychic and Occult Society in 1983.” – David Farrant
The reason Farrant adopted the amended “BPOS” for his non-existent “society” was due to the fact that newspaper editors and journalists invariably prefixed his fraudulent claim with “self-styled.” Hence he would almost always be referred to in the press as the “self-styled president of the British Occult Society,” which, of course, is what he was. Meanwhile, the genuine holder of that office and title chose to ignore Farrant whenever he was interviewed on radio and television.
“He seems to be totally obsessed with myself.” – David Farrant
Yet every interview Farrant gives comprises of lengthy personal attacks of an abusive and defamatory nature against Seán Manchester. Practically every self-published item from Farrant’s “BPOS” imprint maliciously attacks Seán Manchester, often accompanied by a plethora of stolen images from Seán Manchester’s books and website. Not content with obsessively pursuing an ugly vendetta for forty-three years, Farrant also s ends his malicious pamphlets (which he laughingly calls “books”) to anyone he can find who is connected to Seán Manchester, including the latter’s wife, family, in-laws, friends and colleagues. The last time Seán Manchester mentioned Farrant in print was sixteen years ago in his concise vampirological guide where he felt obliged to address some of the disinformation and defamation disseminated by the man he has not seen or spoken to for over a quarter of a century. Seán Manchester has not referred to David Farrant in the broadcast media since that initial gentle warning he gave on 13 March 1970 (“Today,” Thames Television) when he asked that lone vampire hunters such as Farrant desist from interfering with the ongoing offical investigation being carried out by the British Occult Society.
“I have dared to state publicly that I do not believe the fiction he has written about the Highgate ‘vampire’ case.” – David Farrant
Farrant is entitled to express his opinion, but he cannot hide from the fact that he attempted to hoax a ghost story with others (who have confirmed this to be the case), and when that quickly fizzled out he jumped on what he perceived to be a publicity bandwagon by pretending to be a “vampire hunter.” He has hypocritically exploited the vampire angle ever since. Most of his publications, projects and online groups have the name “vampire” (often “Highgate Vampire”) in them. Many titles of his booklets and pamphlets contain the word “Highgate Vampire.” In 1997 he declared himself “president” of the “Highgate Vampire Society” and runs a Facebook group under that banner. All of which is at odds with someone who dismisses the Highgate Vampire case as “fiction.” The truth of the matter is that nobody would be interested in David Farrant without his disingenuous exploitation of Seán Manchester’s investigation and bestselling book. He caught a ride on Seán Manchester’s coat-tail and made a pathetic attempt to mimic the real thing until he turned really poisonous and became a would-be latter-day Aleister Crowley figure. Both he and Seán Manchester know that Farrant’s view on vampires has nothing whatsoever to do with why they have been at loggerheads for forty-three years. Yet for someone who protests his complete and utter non-belief in vampires, David Farrant has a very peculiar way of demonstrating it.
Farrant is quoted as saying in an article in the Hampstead & Highgate Express, 6 March 1970:
“Mr David Farrant, 24, who reported seeing a ghost last month, returned to the spot last weekend and discovered a dead fox. ‘Several other foxes have also been found dead in the cemetery,’ he said at his home in Priestwood Mansions, Archway Road, Highgate. ‘The odd thing is there was no outward sign of how they died. Much remains unexplained, but what I have recently learnt all points to the vampire theory as being the most likely answer. Should this be so, I for one am prepared to pursue it, taking whatever means might be necessary so that we can all rest’.”
Farrant reconstructed his midnight arrest in Highgate Cemetery on the night of 17 August 1970 for a BBC television interview transmitted on 15 October 1970 where he is seen stalking among the tombstones with a cross in one hand and a wooden stake in the other. The interviewer only asks Farrant about “this vampire,” a description that is not challenged. At no point does Farrant say “I don’t believe in vampires.” Then there is the episode with Barry Simmons where David Farrant entered Highgate Cemetery with the journalist and a photographer to demonstrate his “vampire stalking” technique. This is what was reported by Barrie Simmons, accompanied by a selection of photographs showing Farrant stalking a vampire with a Christian cross and a sharpened wooden stake in the Evening News, 16 October 1970:
“I joined a macabre hunt among the desecrated graves and tombs for the vampire of Highgate Cemetery. … David, 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. David stalked among the vaults, past the graves, in the bushes and by the walls. When we had finished he started stalking all over again.”
Farrant glosses over these epidsodes in the hope that people will blink and miss them.
“Manchester claimed in his ‘vampire book’ published by himself in 1985 and considerably revised in 1992 [sic], to have broke into a vault in Highgate Cemetery.” – David Farrant
“The Highgate Vampire” was published in 1985 by the British Occult Society, Highgate, London. The enlarged, revised edition followed in 1991 and was published by Gothic Press. In neither edition does the author say he “broke into a vault.”
“[The BOS has] carefully avoided answering this again.” – David Farrant
Farrant has addressed absolutely nothing put to him on this thread.
For example:
He is always reiterating his attempt at ridiculing Seán Manchester with his familiar jibe of “pulling a wooden stake which he had concealed down the back of his trousers” when that is precisely what Farrant himself did on BBC television, 15 October 1970, as demonstrated in the video (link provided by us earier on this thread on 20 June 2013 at 9:01 am).
Not one person has come forward over almost half a century to say they were one of the “other people” whom Farrant was supposedly protecting from “unwanted publicity” when he was arrested in Highgate Cemetery on the night of 17 August 1970.
Then there is what Farrant wrote in the Hampstead & Highgate Express, 6 February 1970:
“On three occasions I have seen what appeared to be a ghost-like figure inside the gates at the top of Swains Lane. The first occasion was on Christmas Eve. The second sighting, a week later, was also brief. Last week, the figure appeared, only a few yards inside the gate. This time it was there long enough for me to see it much more clearly.”
The next month Farrant stated to Today interviewer Sandra Harris on British television: “The last time I actually saw its face.” Does this not suggest there was a time previous to the one he is referring to in that interview? Then there is the BBC’s “24 Hours” interview transmitted on 15 October 1970. Laurence Picethly’s interview with him for BBC television was sandwiched between footage of the President of the British Occult Society that had been filmed at the society’s north London headquarters and on location at Highgate Cemetery. The man representing the British Occult Society was obviously not Farrant even though Farrant latter would fraudulently adopt that title two years later. In fact, the British Occult Society had distanced itself from what Farrant was doing as far back as March 1970. The interview Farrant gave in late 1970 is important, however, because there are no editors for him to blame for allegedly “altering” what he had said. In the BBC programme the words are heard from his own mouth and there is no escaping them.
Laurence Picethly: “On August the seventeenth, Allan [known locally as ‘Allan’ – his correct name being ‘David’] Farrant decided to pay a midnight visit to the cemetery to combat the vampire once and for all. At the cemetery, Farrant was forced to enter by the back wall [footage shows Farrant entering via the rear of the cemetery], as he still does today. He armed himself with a cross and stake, and crouched between the tombstones, waiting. But that night police, on the prowl for vandals, discovered him. He was charged with being in an enclosed space for an unlawful purpose, but later the Clerkenwell magistrate acquitted him. Now, in spite of attempts by the cemetery owners to bar him, Farrant and his friends [no friends were discovered by the police or subsequently identified by Farrant] still maintain a regular vigil around the catacombs in hope of sighting either the vampire or a meeting of Satanists.”
David Farrant: “We have been keeping watch in the cemetery for … [pauses] … since my court case ended, and we still found signs of their ceremonies.”
Laurence Picethly: “Have you ever seen this vampire?”
David Farrant: “I have seen it, yes. I saw it last February, and saw it on two occasions.”
Laurence Picethly: “What was it like?”
David Farrant: “It took the form of a tall, grey figure, and it … [pauses] … seemed to glide off the path without making any noise.”
Farrant’s interview ends at this point.
Three things are of significance in that BBC television interview from October 1970. The reconstructed footage of what Farrant was doing on the night of 17 August 1970 clearly shows him hunting a vampire with a rosary around his neck, a large cross in one hand and a sharpened wooden stake in the other. There is no ambiguity about what led to his arrest in this report where he is featured reconstructing what he was doing at the time of his arrest at midnight in Highgate Cemetery. The second thing of significance is that when Laurence Picethly asked whether Farrant had ever seen the vampire, Farrant did not attempt to correct the person interviewing him by saying it was something other than a vampire. Nor did he make clear that he did not believe in vampires, or that what he witnessed was not a vampire. Indeed, this section of “24 Hours” was titled “Vampires.” The third thing of significance is that when asked if he had seen the vampire Farrant responded: “I have seen it, yes. I saw it last February, and saw it on two occasions.” He can be heard saying that he had two sightings of the vampire in early 1970, but in an interview he gave his friend Andrew Gough (Arcadia, 12 December 2009), Farrant states that he had only one sighting and this was in December 1969, not February 1970 as stated by him in his BBC television appearance some four decades prior.
Having seen his letter published in the Hampstead & Highgate Express, Seán Manchester agreed to meet David Farrant at Highgate Cemetery so Farrant could point out the spot where he allegedly sighted the apparition mentioned in his correspondence. Seán Manchester was not impressed by this scruffy individual who harped on about potential media coverage of the alleged “ghost” he claimed to have seen. Seán Manchester took the opportunity to warn against antics such as Farrant was considering when he was interviewed on “Today,” Thames Television, 13 March 1970, saying that the investigation of the malefic phenomenon should be left to those who knew what they were doing. In his published letter of 6 February 1970, David Farrant had proclaimed: “I have no knowledge in this field and I would be interested if any other readers have seen anything of this nature.”
Seán Manchester demonstrated on the television programme how such manifestations were traditionally despatched according to vampire lore. Five months later, ignoring the public warning issued by Seán Manchester that individuals should not take matters into their own hands in this way, Farrant was arrested at midnight in Highgate Cemetery by police who found in his possession a cross and wooden stake. Farrant was alone and claimed to be in pursuit of the legendary vampire said to haunt Highgate Cemetery. What this attention-seeker was really in pursuit of was publicity.
No (yet another let’s exploit the situation for our own purposes “Quirky Travel” person), Vebjørn Hästehufvud is not Seán Manchester. That is a smokescreen and distraction technique used by David Farrant and his cronies to avoid addressing anomalies, contradictions and counter-claims.
People outside the Farrant clique and/or those with a modicum of common sense do not repeat such nonsense.
This is not a “bunfight” between “vampire factions.”
It is a confrontation between a pretender and those who genuinely investigated the Highgate Vampire case. Note the difference.
Re: Kevin Crace’s soundtrack “I Am Not A Vampire.”
The imagery says it all really. Thank you Kevin Crace.
Unfortunately, the irony is completely lost on Farrant. Such archived images make a liar of him in everything he nowadays claims.
And Dana Jucan is obviously confusing David Farrant for someone else. He didn’t discover the vampire tomb at Highgate Cemetery (that was Seán Manchester in 1970), but Farrant was quick to have himself photographed next to it many years later after the case had been satisfactorily resolved and closed by Seán Manchester and the Vampire Research Society.
Farrant exists to be falsely associated with the Highgate Vampire case and nothing delights him more than being mistaken for Seán Manchester by a younger generation (usually in distant lands) who are reliant on second and third hand misinformation influenced by Farrant’s determination to hijack anything to do with an investigation carried out by experts who want absolutely nothing to with him.
It is curious that after all these years he has still not got the message.
Due to all the confusion created by David Farrant, the British Occult feels justified in setting the record straight.
The British Occult Society will continue to set the record straight for as long as people are fed fabricaion, foolishness and falsehood by Farrant.
The concensus view forty-three years ago was that Farrant amounted to nothing more than a lone publicity-seeker in search of a convenient bandwagon to jump on. This opinion was reached due to the plethora of first-hand evidence from his contemporaries who knew his claims to be bogus. His publicity stunts nevertheless landed him in jail with a prison sentence of four years and eight months.
“Farrant was a fool. Fascinated by witchcraft … he couldn’t keep his interests to himself. He was a blatant publicist. He told this newspaper of his activities, sent photographs and articles describing his bizarre activities” (Peter Hounam, Editor, Hornsey Journal, 16 July 1974).
Another newspaper reporting on a court appearance where Farrant had apparently orchestrated his own arrest (this time in a churchyard, where witchcraft had supplanted vampires as his vehicle for publicity) recorded: “Mr P J Bucknell, prosecuting, said Mr Farrant had painted circles on the ground, lit with candles, and had told reporters and possibly the police of what he was doing. ‘This appears to be a sordid attempt to obtain publicity,’ he said” (Hampstead & Highgate Express, 24 November 1972).
Soon after his brief stint as a lone “vampire hunter,” Farrant hung up his cross and stake and replaced them with pentagrams, voodoo dolls and ritual daggers. This led to more arrests and a stiff prison sentence. Far from showing any remorse for his behaviour, Farrant has exploited his criminal past to the full in a life devoted to phoney witchcraft and malicious pamphleteering.
The eminent paranormal researcher and author Peter Underwood commented in “The Vampire’s Bedside Companion” (published five years after Farrant had launched himself from obscurity to infamy):
“Publicity of a dubious kind has surrounded the activities of a person or persons named Farrant and his – or their – association with Highgate Cemetery. … Mr Allan Farrant was caught climbing over the wall of Highgate Cemetery carrying a wooden cross and a sharpened piece of wood. … According to the Daily Mail Allan Farrant saw ‘an apparition’ eight feet tall in the cemetery that ‘just floated along the ground’ when he was on watch one morning waiting ‘for the vampire to rise.’ He believed that there had been a vampire in Highgate Cemetery for about ten years. … Less than a month later a Mr David Farrant was guiding Barry Simmons of the London Evening News on a night-tour of Highgate Cemetery armed with a cross and wooden stake which he carried under his arm in a paper carrier bag. In fact the whole project seems to have been a somewhat dismal and depressing effect – even the cross, created from two pieces of wood, was tied together with a shoelace.”
Incredibly, in a home-produced, stapled pamphlet, somewhat unimaginatively titled “Beyond the Highgate Vampire,” self-published a quarter of a century later, Farrant strongly denied ever engaging in vampire hunting with a cross and stake. He merely wanted to measure out a circle, he unconvincingly claimed, with the wooden stake and a piece of string. He protested that he had never in his life claimed to believe in the existence of vampires, much less hunt them. He protested too much.
Pictures of Farrant clutching his “vampire hunting” tools had been appearing in the British press since 1970. A nine inch tall photograph of him, holding a cross in one hand and a stake in the other, appeared on the front page of the Hornsey Journal, 28 June 1974, beneath a banner headline stating: “The Graveyard Ghoul Awaits His Fate.” The picture’s caption: “Farrant on a ‘vampire hunt’ in Highgate Cemetery.”
The report begins:
“Wicked witch David Farrant, tall, pale and dressed all in black, saw his weird world crumble about him this week. Farrant, aged 28, the ghoulish, self-styled High Priest of the British Occult Society [sic], was found guilty by an Old Bailey jury of damaging a memorial to the dead at Highgate Cemetery and interfering with buried remains. … Mr Richard du Cann prosecuting, accused Farrant of ‘terrible’ crimes and at one stage described him as a ‘wicked witch.’ … One of the witnesses for the prosecution was Journal reporter Roger Simpson. Farrant had given him a photograph of a corpse in a partly-opened coffin. Because of the nature of the picture, the paper decided not to publish it, and it was handed to the police.”
This was the beginning of the end of Farrant’s phoney occult career and fraudulent claims regarding the British Occult Society.
On the subject of Mr Manchester being obsessed with me: For any readers who are still bothering to read this thread after being forced to wade through even more of Mr Manchester’s voluminous cut and past diatribes about myself, I rather think said posts prove my point for themselves! David Farrant, President, BPOS
I agree David. And I think it’s high time that Mr Manchester came out from behind that pseudo-heraldic shield of his and put his own name to these claims. We are posting using our real names so why can’t he show us the same decency?
The reason is simple and straightforward as to why our comments are always under the title of our group. We are dealing with trolls.
Seán Manchester is not posting here. Should anyone have anything to ask him we are certain he would provide answers on his Q&A blog.
Curiously, the Farrant clique prefer to accuse anyone not of their perverse ilk as being Seán Manchester. It is a tired and tedious distraction technique that people with any sense soon see through.
There is nothing “decent” about Redmond McWilliams and David Farrant. They fully merit our complete and utter contempt which we are only too pleased to provide.
What is the big deal with identifying whomever is posting? We are a small group who prefer to protect our identity, as do a great many people who use the internet, especially when they are attacked at regular intervals by trolls who are none the wiser whom they are attacking. It will remain the case ad infinitum.
The Farrants of this world will always identify themselves, and as often as possible, because they are publicity whores of the worst kind.
Dennis Wheatley was an Honorary Life Member of both The Ghost Club and the British Occult Society. In the Daily Express, 26 June 1974, Dennis Wheatley said of David Farrant: “I cannot believe for one moment that he is a serious student of the occult. In fact I believe [Farrant] to be evil and entirely to be deplored.” In the same article, Canon Pearce Higgins said of Farrant: “I think he’s crazy.” David Farrant sued the Daily Express, Canon Pearce Higgins and Dennis Wheatley but lost his action, receiving a bill of £20,000 court costs that was left for taxpayers to cover in its entirety. Dennis Wheatley died in November 1977 before making his appearance in the High Court charged with libel. In the event, however, his published statement about Farrant was not found to be libellous and therefore still stands.
David Farrant, when arrested on the night of 17 August 1970, gave the police and later the magistrate’s court the name “Allan Farrow” which he continued to use throughout his stay on remand at Brixton Prison until his release. Hence prison correspondence from Farrant being in the name of “Farrow.” He had not yet attempted to hijack the name of the British Occult Society. That would come later, but when he was contacted by the BBC to discuss his arrest and reconstruct events leading up to it, he fraudulently told them he was associated with the British Occult Society.
For the record, David Farrant (aka Allan Farrow) has at no time in his life been associated or otherwise connected to the British Occult Society, and many times the BOS was obliged to publish retractions following his fraudulent claims in that regard. He persisted with them for the rest of the decade, first claiming to be a member, then its president, then its founder, and, even more bizarrely, its high priest. He was not taken seriously, but when he used these titles during his appearances at the Old Bailey in the summer of 1974, court reporters were obliged to quote him exactly as he described himself, albeit with the prefix “self-styled,” by which time he had long since ditched the curious pseudonym of “Allan Farrow.”
Farrant has provided on YouTube a video interview with a certain Redmond McWilliams, who, though not knowing Farrant for very long, regards him as one of his “dearest friends.”
The final part of the interview finds Farrant rewriting history over his BBC television appearance on 15 October 1970 where he pulled out a wooden stake and a cross from within his trousers and went about reconstructing his pseudo-vampire hunting antics on the night in question when he was arrested by police patrolling Highgate Cemetery at midnight in search of black magic devotees. They instead stumbled across Farrant with his cross and stake.
In his interview with his close friend McWilliams, Farrant claims his appearance on the BBC was not a reconstruction (when the narrator makes it absolutely apparent that it was), but instead something the BBC asked him to do. He also claims that the stake was not for the purpose of hunting a vampire, but to use to inscribe a circle with a piece of string. He fails to explain why he needed a cross for this purpose, or why a witch, as he later claimed to be, would have need of a Catholic rosary suspended around his neck. He also claims that he was misrepresented in the press and that the police set him up and fabricated his statement where he openly admitted to hunting a vampire when they arrested him. Quite what the BBC, the press or the police would have to gain by misrepresenting him in this way is not explained other than everyone was supposedly out to get him. Such paranoid deflections were not evident back in 1970 when Farrant boasted to the Hampstead & Highgate Express, 6 March 1970: “The odd thing is there was no outward sign of how they died. Much remains unexplained, but what I have recently learnt all points to the vampire theory being the most likely answer. Should this be so, I for one am prepared to pursue it, taking whatever means might be necessary so that we can all rest.” Now Farrant says he was just “humouring” the newspaper and has never in his life believed in such things.
Jump to the timeline 20:44 of the thirty-four minutes’ video of McWilliams’ interview to view original footage of Farrant pulling a cross and stake out of his trousers on the BBC programme, and listen to him evade McWilliams’ question, blame the police for “framing” him and then have the audacity to claim that the only reason he was filmed vampire hunting during the reconstruction was because that is “what they wanted.” There was no string attached to the stake, as he now claims, adding that the police removed it, and in a series of extracts from interviews spanning many years he can be heard admitting to the very thing he now denies.
Was there a conspiracy to frame Farrant, or was he jumping on a bandwagon for the sake of his own self-aggrandising publicity in a pathetic attempt to emulate those more seriously engaged in the pursuit of the vampiric presence haunting London’s most famous cemetery? After all these years is he suffering from delusional paranioa, or is he still churning out claims and statements he knows to be false? Or could it be an alternating mixture of both deluson and lies? Whatever the case, a polygraph test is something he has so far avoided.
Seán Manchester was the last President of the British Occult Society. He was also the first to partly bring the British Occult Society from out beneath its dusty covers where it had languished for more than a century. Elected on 21 June 1967, he remained until the British Occult Society’s dissolution on 8 August 1988.
The British Occult Society was originally formed as an umbrella organisation circa 1860. Much of its activity in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century is shrouded in mystery. The BOS came out of the closet, however, in the mid-twentieth century before finally disappearing in 1988. During that period it was presided over by Seán Manchester who placed emphasis on investigating the claims of the occult and the study and research of paranormal phenomena. Out of this history sprang the Vampire Research Society (formerly a specialist unit within the BOS), that was founded by the president of the British Occult Society who first appeared on British television on 13 March 1970.
Seán Manchester had informed the public on 27 February 1970 that demonic disturbances and manifestations in the vicinity of Highgate Cemetery were vampiric. Shortly afterwards he appeared on television on 13 March 1970 to repeat his theory. The suspected tomb was located and an exorcism performed in August 1970. This proved ineffective as the hauntings and animal deaths continued. Indeed, they multiplied. All manner of people were by now jumping on the bandwagon; including film-makers, rock musicians and sundry publicity-seekers. Most were frightened off. Some who interloped became fascinated by the black arts with disastrous consequences. In the meantime, Seán Manchester and his colleagues pursued the principal source of the contagion at Highgate until it was properly exorcised in an effective manner. It was a nightmare journey which took them into a nether region inhabited by terrifying corporeal manifestations.
“Ever since I became aware that Highgate Cemetery was the reputed haunt of a vampire, the investigations and activities of Seán Manchester commanded my attention. I became convinced that, more than anyone else, he knew the full story of the Highgate Vampire.” — Peter Underwood, The Ghost Club Society, London, England.
“I am very impressed by the body of scholarship you have created. Seán Manchester is undoubtedly the father of modern vampirological research.” — John Godl, paranormal researcher and writer, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
“Seán Manchester is the most celebrated vampirologist of the twentieth century.” — Shaun Marin, reviewer and sub-editor, Encounters magazine, England.
“A most interesting and useful addition to the literature of the subject.” — Reverend Basil Youdell, Literary Editor, Orthodox News, Christ the Saviour, Woolwich, England.
“The Highgate Vampire will certainly be read in a hundred years time, two hundred years time, three hundred years time — in short, for as long as mankind is interested in the supernatural. It has the most genuine power to grip. Once you have started to read it, it is virtually impossible to put it down.” — Lyndall Mack (aka Jennie Gray), Udolpho (magazine of the Gothic Society), Chislehurst, Kent, England.
“Seán Manchester, the most authentic vampire hunter in the world today, penetrated the very heart of the mystery whose necrogenic setting has such impressionistic power that within the shades of dark ebon the most disbelieving sceptic will witness something spectral in the ghostly whiteness of moonbeams shining on marble tombs.” — Devendra P Varma, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Canada.
“Seán Manchester is, unsurprisingly, very well read in both classical and more recent sources on vampires and vampirism, and cites them with great authority.” — Joe McNally, contributing editor, Fortean Times magazine, England.
“His lectures at universities and organisations led to my inviting him to address members of the Ghost Club Society which he duly did. We met at that time at the Swedenborg Hall in Bloomsbury and the President of the Vampire Research Society arrived, suitably attired, and gave a memorable and in many ways remarkable lecture. Certainly we had had nothing like it before and have never had anything like it since; not a few members at the crowded meeting revised their opinion on vampires and vampirism after that evening.” — Peter Underwood, President, The Ghost Club Society, London, England.
“One of the most notable figures to visit the haunted site under cover of darkness was Seán Manchester, who has been called one of Britain’s foremost vampire hunters and exorcists.” — Craig Miller, associate editor, Fate magazine, Minnesota, USA.
“I believe Seán Manchester is this country’s only genuine vampirologist.” — Nicole Lampert, journalist, features department, The Sun newspaper, London, England.
“Seán Manchester doesn’t just acknowledge the possibility; he knows that vampires exist.” — Stephen Jarvis, author and researcher of strange pursuits, England.
“First thrust into the public eye in the Seventies after a spate of gruesome reports about North London’s Highgate Cemetery, Seán Manchester is now acknowledged as a serious vampirologist with a God-given mission.” — Frances Hubbard, features’ writer, IPC magazines, London, England
“Seán Manchester has been called in to investigate ghoulish visitations at former Liberal leader David Steel’s Scottish castle and an old estate in Yorkshire where a dark, demonic spook is terrifying locals.” — Pam Bentley, features’ writer, Sunday magazine, London, England
“Seán Manchester has spent a significant proportion of his life pursuing reports of vampiric and necromantic activity. His visceral account of his pursuit and termination of a vampire he discovered entombed in Highgate Cemetery’s Egyptian columbarium in the ‘70s, The Highgate Vampire, even includes a photograph of the staked beast in its death-throes.” — Stevan Keane, features’ writer, City Limits magazine, London, England
“The shadow of a stone angel stole across Seán Manchester’s face as he laid out the tools of his trade: old Italianate crucifixes, holy water … Traditional instruments of protection. … Risking life and soul is all part of a night’s work for Manchester … the founding president of the Vampire Research Society.” — Beverley d’Silva, features’ writer, Sunday Times magazine, London, England.
“Seán Manchester, billed as ‘Vampirologist and Exorcist,’ pops up in a graveyard [on London Weekend Television’s South Bank Show] with groovy long hair and crucifix of cinematic proportions.” — Suzy Feay, sub-editor, reviewer and critic, Time Out magazine, London, England
“Seán Manchester’s Vampire Research Society grew out of his previous leadership role in an occult investigation bureau [the Bristish Occult Society]. The society investigates all aspects of ‘supernatural vampire phenomena,’ a task that has led to a variety of research projects, including the famous Highgate Vampire.” — J Gordon Melton, chronicler of vampire topics, Santa Barbara, USA
” In the meantime, Seán Manchester and his colleagues pursued the principal source of the contagion at Highgate until it was properly exorcised in an effective manner. It was a nightmare journey which took them into a nether region inhabited by terrifying corporeal manifestations” – writes Mr Manchester.
You mean your fictional story about how you tracked down the ‘King Vampire’ to a derelict Gothic mansion on the boaders of Crouch End, built a pyre in the overgrown back garden; placed the ‘vampire’ on this in its coffin, and set light to it, don’t you Sean!? It gave out an almighty roar, and then turned to sludge and virscera in the bottom of its coffin, etc, etc. The end of the Highgate Vampire, if we are to believe that, Mr Manchester.
You then discovered that the ‘King Vampire’ had a disciple: a girl you call ‘Lusia’ who was your live-in girlfriend (real name Jacqueline Frances Cooper) who was herself a ‘vampire’!
She was buried in the Great North London Cemetery after having died of a ‘wasting blood’ disease – although interestingly the cemetery owners absolutely deny that anybody of that name, age or description was – or indeed is – buried there.
Anyway, you say you held a nightly vigil at her graveside Sean, where she suddenly ‘attacked’ you in the form of a ‘giant spider’! You say (and let us remember YOU write all this in your own book Sean) you then you staked her through the heart (although God only knows how you’d find the heart of a giant spider!) whereupon she changed back into ‘Lusia’ still impaled on your stake . . . “No longer the devil’s Undead, but one of God’s true dead”.
As a serious psychic investigator Sean, I just don’t know how you expect people to believe such nonsense.
Pull the other one, Sean, its got church bells on it!
David Farrant, President, British Psychic and Occult Society.
“Quirky Travel”, please ignore Mr Manchester’s denials as it has been well established by a number of independent sources that he has used a plethora of aliases over the past four decades – many of them in recent years and online. With a number found originating from the same IP address! Thankfully a (non-exhaustive) list has been compiled for the most interpret of sock puppet spotters. So have fun and get spotting everyone!
They are as follows:
Albé, Apostle of Christ, Arminius Vambery, Arthur Saxon, Bishop’s Chaplain, Bishop Seán Manchester, Bishop of Glastonbury, Bishop’s PR Secretary, British Occult Society, Br Kevin, Caledfwych, Chairman, Chairman of the Society of St George, Ciarán O’Hanlon, Crusader, Crusader Knight, Demonologist, Dennis Crawford, DennisCrawford1, Diana Brewester, Episcopus, Exorcistate, FoBSM Administration, George Byron, Genevieve Lyons, Gerard de Saxo, Gothic, James, Katrina Garforth-Bles, KatrinaGarforth-Bles1, Lady Sarah Manchester, Lord Manchester, Michael Thane, Montague Summers, Mythbuster, Old Catholic Church, Ordo Sancti Graal, Peter Lord, Robin Crisp, Ruthven Glenarvon, Sangreal, Santa Claus, Seán (Superior General), +Seán Manchester, Steatoda Nobilis, Steve Eastwood, Society of St. George, So Late into the Night, The Apostle, The Author, The Informative One, The Overseer, TheHighgateVampire, The Magister, Timelord, Time Traveller, Vampire Research Society, Vampire Researcher, Vampire Research Society. Vampirologist, Vebjørn Hästehufvud, and Veritas Aequitas.
A quick google search of any of the above will quickly bring you to the conclusion that ‘their’ respective posts all originate from the one pen!
Says the so called ‘British Occult Society’: “The reason is simple and straightforward as to why our comments are always under the title of our group. We are dealing with trolls.”
Only trolls like yourself Sean hide behind multiple aliases. In academic literature, the shady practice of online trolling was first documented by Judith Donath (1999). Donath’s paper pointed out out that the adoption of a cloak of anonymity is a common practice with online trolls like yourself:
To quote: “Trolling is a game about identity deception, albeit one that is played without the consent of most of the players. The troll attempts to pass as a legitimate participant, sharing the group’s common interests and concerns; the newsgroups members, if they are cognizant of trolls and other identity deceptions, attempt to both distinguish real from trolling postings, and upon judging a poster a troll, make the offending poster leave the group. Their success at the former depends on how well they – and the troll – understand identity cues; their success at the latter depends on whether the troll’s enjoyment is sufficiently diminished or outweighed by the costs imposed by the group. Trolls can be costly in several ways. A troll can disrupt the discussion on a newsgroup, disseminate bad advice, and damage the feeling of trust in the newsgroup community. Furthermore, in a group that has become sensitized to trolling – where the rate of deception is high – many honestly naïve questions may be quickly rejected as trollings. This can be quite off-putting to the new user who upon venturing a first posting is immediately bombarded with angry accusations. Even if the accusation is unfounded, being branded a troll is quite damaging to one’s online reputation.”
Any of this sound familiar to you Sean? It should do!
Source: Donath, Judith S. (1999). “Identity and deception in the virtual community”. In Smith, Marc A.; Kollock, Peter. Communities in Cyberspace (illustrated, reprint ed.). Routledge. pp. 29–59.
So Sean you give us a stream of recommendations and commendations from various authors and journos, but I have to ask why? Apart from stroking your ego what do they bring to the conversation? You do realise that none of them offer any validation for your vampire hunting exploits… and that’s no matter how much so called ‘experts’ like Underwood or the late Varma say they were convinced. Just where is the cold, hard evidence? Independent and verifiable evidence that supports and corroborates your story?
Well, just where is it Sean? No more defection, I want answers.
Something has been puzzling me, and as you have a BA Hons in Psychology and extensive experience in psychiatric care, perhaps you have some views, Redmond.
Mr Manchester has here (yet again) demonstrated his obsession with posting slabs of lavishly illustrated (dis) information about myself. I don’t need to tell you of all people that he has been indulging in this behaviour since the inception of the internet (or at least since he started his free hosted website in 1999 which he still maintains (in all its original glory!) ). This rather quirky little website is littered with images of myself which Manchester either took himself or endeavored to obtain the copyright thereof. Prior to this he was disseminating vast amounts of the same old nonsense by post to a vast array of astonished and disinterested parties. All of this seems to take second place to his ecclesiastical and domestic duties; a fair assumption based on the percentage of published information by himself which circuitously references myself seemingly for the sole purpose of enabling him to talk about me or view/display images of me.
Looking back I can observe a similar trend viz his obsession with documenting and photographing myself dating back even to the late 1960s. At the time I didn’t really think anything of it, and just put it down to Sean’s eccentricity. But I have been plagued recently by memories of him continually contriving situations whereby he could photograph me, not just at the cemetery but at my house, his house, friends’ houses, local pubs etc. If we were in the same room, out would come Sean’s camera, and these photos were clearly not for press use but, one can only think, personal use.
I have also become slightly concerned recently about Sean’s recurrent fascination regarding film footage of myself removing a hard cylindrical object from my trousers (a stake). One gets the impression that he has played this clip many times over, presumably alone and out of sight of anyone else (well I don’t suppose the wife is as interested as him).
What do you think it all means, Redmond? I mean, I have vague ideas but can’t quite seem to piece the jigsaw together. Is there a pattern to all this behaviour?
Yours,
David Farrant, President, British Psychic and Occult Society
For so many years I thought I was the only gay in Highgate village, but it seems that I have not been alone for all these years. Let us gays all celebrate together with this enchanting little ditty which has been played behind closed doors in private houses in Highgate for far too long; and remember – we should all feel proud to be able to sing aloud “I am what I am!” All the best, Doug https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTN6Du3MCgI
Mr.Manchester, it’s clear that you believe in the “Hollywood” version of what a vampire might be. Is this a childhood fetish that blossomed into adult obsession? Simple question followed by another..do you truly believe that you are a bishop?
Hi Stephen and Tom, glad to have kept you both so amused! I really was having so much fun until Bonky ran away because he couldn’t answer my question about who gave him permission to break into the vault in Highgate Cemetery when he intended to ‘stake a vampire’!
Well… that escalated quickly!
For the record, I no longer co-admin the HCVAS nor am I a member, but I do have my own group, which is a spin-off from my blog, “Did a Wampyr Walk in Highgate?”. See: https://www.facebook.com/groups/awampyrwalks/
Just to address a few points, I can confirm that McWilliams is, indeed, the true founder of the HCVAS. And Hästehufvud did rip him off. All one has to do is look at the dates the respective groups were founded.
Hästehufvud, a notorious troll in these circles, also posts under the following usernames: “Gothic”, “Demonologist”, “Vampirologist”, “Dennis Crawford”, “The Overseer” (ripping off a username I used to post under), “B.O.S.”, “British Occult Society” and “Arminius Vámbéry”. And those are just the ones I’ve been able to confirm. There’s likely a slew of others.
He pretends these are all different people, unfortunately for him, he leaves a breadcrumb trail wherever he goes, so the names can all be linked back to him. It’s also highly likely that he actually is Manchester, himself, made even more amusing by the fact that Hästehufvud claims he’s not religious – Manchester, meanwhile, is the bishop of an Old Catholic spin-off he founded.
Oh, and incidentally – there’s no evidence Dennis Wheatley was a member of the British Occult Society.
I’ve been researching the folklore of graveyard ‘hauntings’ (as a haunting can have various explanations, many of them quite un-supernatural) for years, and am not surprised that the furor over Highggate goes on. Highgate’s fate has improved considerably, while other cemeteries (such as Bachelor’s Grove in Chicago, United States) have become targets of vandalism and crimes.
I’m neither in the camp of Mr. Farrant nor Manchester, as I remain uncertain that this wasn’t a mythos created in the minds of both well meaning, but susceptible individuals and some manipulative self promoters. I will say that wherever Manchester or one of his supporters/trolls starts posting, there is bound to over the top cut and pasting of the same silly crap, and ridiculous assertions that attempt to drown out any reasonable discussion of the controversy that started back in the sixties. The folklore is fascinating without the need to stir up old antagonisms. At the very least, Highgate was being haunted by the living, with the unfortunate result that desecration occurred.
That sums up the matter quite well, peltier. The real question though, is – *did* it start in the 60s? The problem is, the earlier reports were given after the fact. They also tend to be anonymous. Essentially we have their “word” for it. So who’s to say the folklore, itself, was created?
The subsequent desecration of the cemetery is pretty much the reason why the cemetery tries to distance itself from the stories.
As to this:
” I will say that wherever Manchester or one of his supporters/trolls starts posting, there is bound to over the top cut and pasting of the same silly crap…”
That’s made even more amusing by the fact that the person in question posting it… is representing a society that closed shop in 1988.
My name is Sam Perrin and I’ve been a volunteer tour guide at Highgate Cemetery for ten years.
The vandalism and desecration inflicted on the cemetery’s monuments and residents at the hands of Messrs Manchester, Farrant and their associates is sickening and I make a point of enlightening visitors to this fact on every tour I take. The vast majority of visitors shake their heads in disbelief at the disgraceful levels of disrespect shown to the dead by these “vampire hunters” and the only bad energy that ever entered Highgate Cemetery came courtesy of these deluded men and their cronies.
Boys, it’s time to grow up. Forty five years of ideological zealotry is too much (seriously, please stop).
That’s fine Sam. But we should remember that it was Mr. Manchester who claimed that the ghost seen at Highgate Cemetery was a ‘vampire’ – NOT myself! So at least please try and get your facts right!
Bold Doug: How about putting your hands into your pockets and contributing towards the Friends of Highgate Cemetery Trust, the organisation that’s *still* trying to repair all the damage done to the monuments from those dark days? Whether the (non-existent) entity was a vampire or a ghost is completely irrelevant.
Must further debasement and debauchery from convicted felon David Farrant and his cabal of misfits be allowed on this forum? Anyone familiar with Farrant’s bandwagoneering career as an interloping charlatan can see this vile creature has an axe to grind against the celebrated author of The Highgate Vampire and pursues a campaign of lies and misinformation. To this day Farrant denies that he was responsible for the UFO’s seen by dozens of residents of Bournemouth in 2007, when Farrant well knows he and his band of malcontents intentionally engineered the event with the intention of disturbing Bishop Seán Manchester at his seaside retreat. Farrant’s band of misguided followers are sworn to pursue an agenda of discrediting Bishop Sean Manchester by any means necessary including slander, transparent fabrication, misleading and erroneous interpretation and a plethora of false allegations.
David Farrant aka “Bold Doug” (what were you saying about sockpuppets again?) – you did claim the ghost was a vampire, as per your appearances in the Ham & High 6 March 1970 article, “Why Do the Foxes Die?”, your TV appearance on “24 Hours”, 15 October 1970 (which had the added bonus of showing you re-enacting what you did on the night you were arrested in August 1970) and as late as 2005, you told the Ham & High you believed “the vampire was active again.”
So you don’t get off the hook that easily. I suggest you take Sam up on her off and donate to the cemetery trust. After all, you’ve spent years making money off the case – so why not give a little back?
” For VRSexcarpimento: Although I do issue the occasional humor video such as the one where poor Hoggy is taken off this Earth by space aliens (if only it were true!) who subject him to some probing of a rather personal nature, I can assure you that the UFOs seen over Bournemouth in 2007 were no joke. I’d contacted the alien commander beforehand and asked specifically that you be picked up, but alas, it seemed you were too quick and had hidden yourself in an outdoor loo building (rather more a shed I think) on the property. A little birdie has since told me that in the event of any future interplanetary invasions you plan to hide under you wife’s bed instead. But I understand the commander has since been informed of this intention. You may see outer space yet, Sean, for I am told the UFOs will be back in force at the end of the summer. Watch the skies!
Yours for the moment,
David Farrant “
So the way you deal with a legit offer Bold Doug/David Farrant is to gabble about aliens with your mate.
Good to see you didn’t try denying calling the thing a vampire, David. Afterall, it’s much better to talk nonsense rather than address something you actually said.
Does that mean you *won’t* be donating to the trust, despite banking off the vampire case for decades, David?
For Anthony Hogg,
“Bold Doug” is not myself, Anthony. Sorry, wrong yet again!
I did not tell the Ham and High newspaper back in 2006 . . . “That vampire is active again”. That headline appeared on one of their billboards following an interview they did with myself. Their interpretation of the Highgate phenomenon – not mine! So, wrong yet again!
You state (in part) . . .
“Your TV appearance on “24 Hours”, 15 October 1970 (which had the added bonus of showing you re-enacting what you did on the night you were arrested in August 1970) etc.
I was NOT ‘vampire hunting’. The BBC asked me to reconstruct erroneous newspaper coverage that I was vampire hunting – a point I had already denied in open Court, and a charge of which I was acquitted of in September 1970.
So sorry Anthony, wrong yet again. You obviously have no knowledge of this case whatsoever, Anthony, or you could not keep getting your facts so confused!
David Farrant.
Not another new sock puppet Sean! Have you worn out Messrs ‘British Occult Society’ and ‘Vebjørn Hästehufvud’ already? But getting back on topic, let me see if I’ve got this right: are you claiming that David Farrant is not only in direct communication with extraterrestrials but he has ordered them to fly down to Bournemouth in their flying saucers to harass its citizens? Are you for real?!
David, you don’t need to have a BSc in Psychology to see that Sean is plainly bonkers! That’s my frank and honest assessment. No need for a lengthy (and costly) psychiatric examination with this one.
The NHS is struggling s it is!
Says Sean (talking about himself as usual):
“Farrant’s band of misguided followers are sworn to pursue an agenda of discrediting Bishop Sean Manchester by any means necessary including slander, transparent fabrication, misleading and erroneous interpretation and a plethora of false allegations.”
So what are you saying Sean? That you are in actual fact a real Bishop, with a real church and a real congregation? And that you really did stake not one but TWO blood sucking vampires in suburban North London?!
Well blow me down with a feather! Truly I take it all back!!
BREAKING NEWS … HIGHGATE TOUR GUIDE MISLEADS THE GENERAL PUBLIC (what’s new?!)
“The vast majority of visitors shake their heads in disbelief at the disgraceful levels of disrespect shown to the dead by these “vampire hunters” ” (Sam Perrin)
I am not a vampire hunter and never was. I do not believe in vampires.
“ and the only bad energy that ever entered Highgate Cemetery came courtesy of these deluded men and their cronies.”
Thank you for educating all pagan and psychically sensitive people about this, Sam, I am sure you are right and they are ALL wrong.
“The vandalism and desecration inflicted on the cemetery’s monuments and residents at the hands of Messrs Manchester, Farrant and their associates is sickening and I make a point of enlightening visitors to this fact on every tour I take. “
In which case, Sam, you devote a lot of time to presenting misleading information to the public. Your perception of the appalling condition of Highgate Cemetery prior to 1970 is disturbingly inaccurate; perhaps you should ask your team leader for some training. Alternatively I understand that there are many books devoted to accurately recording local history in Highgate Library. As you will be aware, to this day I contest the charges brought against me, which incidentally did not include vandalism per se. Quite how you have come to the conclusion that I caused £9000 worth of damage to the cemetery when I have never been accused of toppling one tombstone is mysterious at best. If you are leading groups of people around Highgate Cemetery and implying that I am responsible for the dilapidation which began around the time of WW1 when I wasn’t even born, and which worsened throughout the 1920s, reached a critical level during the 1940s and 1950s then I feel sorry for the people who are paying to learn about the cemetery’s history and missing out on this period of its history. I suppose I bewitched the roots of the sycamore trees into upturning and destabilising monuments too and encouraged the growth of weeds by the light of the full moon; nothing to do with the fact that most of the gardeners were laid off during the war of course, relatives who would have tended graves moving away from London to avoid the blitz, the water table or the steep incline of the land.
Your implication that I am responsible for the grave robbing, smashing of tombstones and desecration which was occurring, as evidenced by William Law himself in court in 1974, during the 1960s BEFORE the vampire flap, while I wasn’t even in the country, is plainly absurd. That I am to blame for the inability of people to take responsibility for their own actions with regard to bussing up from Finsbury Park and other suburbs of North London and driving stakes through corpses, is nonsensical. Yes, the media coverage instigated by Mr Manchester encouraged this behaviour – indeed, on two television programmes in 1970 he produced a wooden stake which he had concealed down his trousers – but are the real vandals not answerable for their own actions? Johnny Rotten certainly owns up to his own role, and in his own autobiography “No Irish, No Blacks, No Dogs” admits how he and his ‘mates’ used to enter Highgate Cemetery in the late 1960’s/early 1970’s, take the lids of coffins to look at the state of the corpses [Pg 62]
Mr Manchester also admits in his self-published book The Highgate Vampire to having entered Highgate Cemetery (on just one of many occasions), forcing open the door of a vault, and forcing off the lid of a coffin which contained (or which he claimed contained)
a ‘fanged vampire’ – its mouth still gorged with freshly drained blood from its previous night’s feast! (First ed., pg 55)
In my own writings I discuss discovering the remains of Satanic rituals, keeping nightly vigils for an incorporeal entity which many other people had seen, and conducting ceremonies intended to establish psychic contact with this entity. Hardly the same thing.
My books primarily discuss ‘ghosts’ and other unexplained phenomenon – and the amount of money I have made is negligible in contrast to the necessity and validity of correcting disinformation put out by people such as yourselves. You may not believe in the paranormal, Sam, but that does not entitle you to presume to definitively ‘educate’ others that it is not a fact of life, on the basis that that you wander round a cemetery for an hour once a month and do a bit of gardening. I note with interest, however, that Mr Hogg himself is in the process (or should that be in stasis) of writing his own book about events at Highgate Cemetery. I can only assume he will be donating 100% of any revenue to the Friends of Highgate Cemetery, to help them continue their excellent work in the restoration of the cemetery which has been so ravaged by time and neglect.
Perhaps you should focus more on educating people about the true history of the cemetery and how it was abandoned and neglected by the people of Highgate and Haringey for decades, and not on pushing a personal agenda while indulging the sound of your own voice during your noble tours of Highgate.
With regard to Mr Hogg’s implication that I am somehow duty bound to subsidise Highgate Cemetery financially – you both clearly believe that I was ‘guilty as charged’ – presumably you think spending 2 years and 8 months in prison culminating in a hunger strike from which I nearly died is insufficient ‘penance’ for my alleged crimes. Sorry Sam, no donation towards the volunteers’ Christmas party this year.
Yours most sincerely,
David Farrant
President, British Psychic and Occult Society
Farrant flunkie and rabid atheist Redmond McWilliams is a willing collaborator in producing a the steady stream of anti-Bishop Seán Manchester materials that are regularly disseminated by the means tested mob of Muswell Hill. A video made by and featuring David Farrant at Christmas 2011 culminates with the decapitation the Bishop’s head in effigy. It can be viewed at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xYUr15UwO7A
Farrant cabal member Redmond McWilliams parped ineffectually, “are you claiming that David Farrant is not only in direct communication with extraterrestrials but he has ordered them to fly down to Bournemouth in their flying saucers to harass its citizens? Are you for real?! ”
McWilliams is quick to assign blame to alleged foibles of Seán Manchester but nothing of the sort is supported by the actual facts of this incident. The “UFO’s” widely seen in Spring 2007 over the Bournemouth coast were proven to be a malicious prank perpetrated by David Farrant and brainwashed associates Gareth Medway and Zane, who is a mulatto. This ragtag band of miscreants under the direction of Farrant released Chinese lanterns in the hills above the Bishop Seán Manchester’s retreat in hopes of upsetting the Bishop and his family: http://www.alukeonlife.com/2007/05/25/ufos-spotted-in-bournemouth Anyone interested in the truth of the matter should investigate official records of the Dorset Police that duly support this conclusion.
So your UFOs turned out to be nothing more than Chinese lanterns… and your point is Sean? Well, duh!
Seriously, I really think you really need to seek some professional help for these persecutory and paranoid thoughts that you’ve been having. It’s becoming quite apparent that your delusions are becoming more and more fantastic as time moves on.
First it was hunting vampires and now this? Please seek help before its too late!
Especially for you Sean. Enjoy!
http://www.thespoof.com/news/uk/24683/bishop-bonkers-identifies-farrant-as-ufo-conjuring-witch
And for everyone else:
http://www.hecklerspray.com/awesome-or-off-putting-the-highgate-vampire/20079594.php
Redmond McWilliams, assiduously weaving a fabric of lies and maliciousness so carefully encouraged by his erstwhile puppet master David Farrant said, “Seriously, I really think you really need to seek some professional help for these persecutory and paranoid thoughts that you’ve been having.”
McWilliams would do well to seek help himself, as he utterly refuses to acknowledge clear evidence of Farrant’s treachery even when it’s staring him in the face. In May of 2013, Bournemouth authorities were called to Bishop Seán Manchester’s private retreat to remove a goat who had been deliberately released onto the property by Farrant flunkies with the intention of disturbing the Bishop in his daily prayer. RSPCA officials discovered a bell affixed to the goat, clearly designed to create noise and distraction. The bell, it was found, was of a type sold by a particular shop in North London, mere steps away from the Muswell Hill bedsit of David Farrant who undoubtedly engineered the entire episode arising from the deep malice and antipathy he holds toward the Bishop and indeed anything religious in nature.
It’s pretty obvious VRSexcarpimento isn’t one of Sean’s sockpuppets, but a mockery of one.
In the meantime, David, re: your comments.
“Bold Doug” is not myself, Anthony. Sorry, wrong yet again!”
Take a look at your reply as Bold Doug, David. Nice try, though.
“I did not tell the Ham and High newspaper back in 2006 . . . “That vampire is active again”. That headline appeared on one of their billboards following an interview they did with myself. Their interpretation of the Highgate phenomenon – not mine! So, wrong yet again!”
It was 2005, not 2006. It wasn’t just part of the headline, but a quote from you, i.e. the thing that inspired the headline. So, not wrong. Coincidentally, it was at the same time you were promoting the reformation of the Highgate Vampire Society.
“I was NOT ‘vampire hunting’. The BBC asked me to reconstruct erroneous newspaper coverage that I was vampire hunting – a point I had already denied in open Court, and a charge of which I was acquitted of in September 1970.”
In that same interview, you admitted to seeing the vampire. The vampire hunting angle was a re-enactment of what you were supposed to have done that night. Not a stage play.
In the meantime, will you be donating to the trust?
Also, what Sam is referring to is the damage caused in the wake of spurious publicity you and Manchester courted, in regard to claims about certain things haunting the cemetery – including allusions you both made to hunting it, to the press.
Are you denying that in the wake of the publicity you gave, there wasn’t a sharp uptake of damage and sightseers, etc.?
Oh, and regarding this: “With regard to Mr Hogg’s implication that I am somehow duty bound to subsidise Highgate Cemetery financially” – that was Sam’s implication/suggestion. Not sure why you’re redirecting it to me. Possibly to take the heat off comments made by someone who actually has to clean up the mess left behind in the wake of your stunts.
Anthony Hogg, a mixed-breed of aboriginal descent who works at a petrol station in a suburb of Melbourne, Australia has completed his transmogrification into one of Farrant’s mindless stooges, as evidenced by his never missing an opportunity to slight Bishop Seán Manchester. Hogg is an individual of low station obsessed with his betters, his time taken up with publishing a multiplicity of little-attended blog pages having the express intent of maligning the Bishop. His obsession with vampires and all matters occult fits clearly within the profile of one who is demonaically possessed and utterly bent on the destruction of those such as the Bishop who are on the side of good.
You just keep digging that hole for yourself Sean because when you’ve reached a six foot depth I’m sure there’s plenty of people around who would be more than willing to back fill it in for you!
A case in point are your racial slurs and innuendos with using outdated and offensive terms such as ‘mixed-breed’ or ‘malato.’ Anthony is a human being, not some breed of dog; so show him some respect. And once again you make the claim that Anthony is of aboriginal descent when he has already told you that he is not – not that he would have any issue with it, if had been true I’m sure.
But what I want to know is how any of this is this relevant to the debate at hand? The only conclusion I can come to is that you’re resorting to using race as a means to attack his character and reputation, because you cannot validly or intelligently counter any of his points, and in a civil manner.
Face facts Sean you are a racist as well as a homophobe, and you’re only being so bold with your long held prejudices here because you are speaking from behind a sock puppet. Only internet trolls operate in this manner Sean and you know it.
What a brave man you are – NOT!
Sigh. Are you done yet?
“Are you denying that in the wake of the publicity you gave, there wasn’t a sharp uptake of damage and sightseers, etc.?”
There was a sharp increase in vandals (more like maniacs) going into Highgate Cemetery, breaking into coffins, and staking corpses. I have already stated that – you are really just confirming my statement. This was NOT occurring before Mr. Manchester went on two television programmes, (the ITV and BBC) pulled a wooden stake concealed down his trousers and proceeded to advise viewers ‘how to hunt vampires’. Its a common sense conclusion, Anthony, that the perpetrators of these illegal acts were influenced by Mr. Manchester’s instructions made on these programmes.
The cemetery superintendant, Mr William Law, confirmed this fact himself at my Old Bailey trial in 1974. So no need to take just my word for it. Or this could be confirmed by the police.
As to me referring to it as a ‘vampire’, I have already explained to you (on countless occasions) that I took over the name of the Highgate Vampire Society from Jennie Lee Cobban back in 1996/7. I kept the word ‘vampire’ as it was the name of her original Society, and thus easier for existing members to refer to as a point of reference. But it did not – and does not – imply that I accept the possible existence of vampires. As you are trying to erroneously imply.
And it is a matter of record, that it was the television presenter on the BBC who referred to the ghost as a vampire – or more precisely, “this vampire”.
Now, I notice you have deliberately avoided answering my assumption that when your book on ‘vampires’ and Highgate Cemetery, you would be donating the profits to the Friends of Highgate Cemetery to help towards the upkeep of the cemetery. Is this correct, or have I been informed incorrectly?
David Farrant, President, BPOS.
It has been asserted that we set off several Chinese lanterns in Bournemouth in order to disturb the Bishop. This is totally untrue: in fact, we hired a small squadron of UFOs to fly over the town, for a fee of 10,000 Gdonks. (This is an intergalactic currency, which will be familiar to those who read the Sunday Sport in the 1980s.)
Actually, some men develop paranoia in old age, and I suspect that this is what has happened here. Towards the end of his life, the Emperor Augustus became convinced that people were trying to poison him, so that he would consume nothing except figs that he picked himself, and milk from a cow that he milked himself. I do not know if Sean has a fig tree or a cow in his garden.
Gareth J. Medway (posted by David Farrant)
This from Farrant’s chief handler and lieutenant, Gareth J. Medway, who willingly leaps from his bed at any hour in response to his overlord’s telephoned commands to fetch liquor, tobacco, or worse!
This from Sean Manchester, a man with so little real friends that he has to invent some to keep him company during the long, lonely hours spent propped up in front of his computer screen. Speaking of which Sean, how is your old ‘Swedish chum’ ‘Vebjorn’?
Bishop Seán Manchester is far too busy with the Ecclesiastical duties of his Church to address blogs such as these where he is mentioned – of which there are literally hundreds. He neither sees them nor knows about them. Yet if he were to be somehow exposed to such riffraff I’m certain he would decry the unspeakable acts of moral debasement such as the one suggested by Medway’s prideful display of torn women’s undergarments here: http://davidfarrant.org/TheHumanTouch/gareth-j-medway-and-the-case-of-the-apporting-bra-strap/
But that’s just my point Sean – you have no church, no ministry to speak of. Other than in your rather addled mind of course. So quit trying to change the subject!
David,
Firstly, it’s nice to see you’re no longer trying to desperately assert I’m wrong about things I’ve corrected you on. You’ve probably come to realise the futility of doing that, when all I have to do is quote you. But if you want to keep tarnishing your credibility in that manner (presuming you really have any at all), that’s fine with me.
Now onto your other comments…
“There was a sharp increase in vandals (more like maniacs) going into Highgate Cemetery, breaking into coffins, and staking corpses. I have already stated that – you are really just confirming my statement. This was NOT occurring before Mr. Manchester went on two television programmes, (the ITV and BBC) pulled a wooden stake concealed down his trousers and proceeded to advise viewers ‘how to hunt vampires’.”
You both went to the press proclaiming a vampire theory. There’s only so often you can keep deflecting it all back to Manchester.
“Its a common sense conclusion, Anthony, that the perpetrators of these illegal acts were influenced by Mr. Manchester’s instructions made on these programmes.”
Which you went along with. It’s an angle you also played up to the press. Here’s something you said in 2011, as proof: “The worst I did was to go along with another person’s innane [sic] wild assertions about a ‘blood-sucking vampire’, but again, this was only because this was the ‘angle’ the Press and television wanted at the time – ‘vampires’ apparently selling more newspapers or attracting more interested audiences for TV.” So, that makes you responsible for popularising the theory, too.
“The cemetery superintendant, Mr William Law, confirmed this fact himself at my Old Bailey trial in 1974. So no need to take just my word for it. Or this could be confirmed by the police.”
The same superintendent also referred to you as a “nutter” in the 24 Hours program. And he didn’t single out Manchester during the trial. But he did appear on the same program in which you re-enacted what you did on the night you were arrested in August 1970.
“As to me referring to it as a ‘vampire’, I have already explained to you (on countless occasions) that I took over the name of the Highgate Vampire Society from Jennie Lee Cobban back in 1996/7.”
You’re deliberately confusing the issue here. You told Sam: “That’s fine Sam. But we should remember that it was Mr. Manchester who claimed that the ghost seen at Highgate Cemetery was a ‘vampire’ – NOT myself!” As established, it wasn’t just Manchester, but you too.
“I kept the word ‘vampire’ as it was the name of her original Society, and thus easier for existing members to refer to as a point of reference. But it did not – and does not – imply that I accept the possible existence of vampires. As you are trying to erroneously imply.”
Which is not in context with what you said in the 2005 article. Nor was I implying you did. Your implication of my supposed implication is false. I’m saying you have called it a vampire – and that’s true. The problem is, you keep (desperately) trying to place the blame solely on Manchester’s shoulders. You’re responsible, too.
As to believing in vampires, though – you do. Your own partner recognises that you believe in psychic vampires, as noted in her introduction to “Out of the Shadows.”
“And it is a matter of record, that it was the television presenter on the BBC who referred to the ghost as a vampire – or more precisely, “this vampire”.”
And you confirmed what he asked. Nice try.
“Now, I notice you have deliberately avoided answering my assumption that when your book on ‘vampires’ and Highgate Cemetery, you would be donating the profits to the Friends of Highgate Cemetery to help towards the upkeep of the cemetery. Is this correct, or have I been informed incorrectly?”
You’re correct and I will. So will you be making any donations to the trust?
I have already answered all your points, Anthony. And I am not repeating my answers again. Go back and read what I said properly, if you can’t understand my answers.
It seems to me you are just repeating your old cut and pasted points, which I have answered dozens upon dozens times on different Forum and Message Boards.
I am not going to entertain your rather perverse views on ‘vampires’. I have already told you, as I have already made clear on the Internet and in many of my Talks. I DO NOT accept the existence of vampires, or ‘psychic vampires’ as you are apparently trying to interpret that word.
That is the end of it really. I do not intend to bore people here with entering into more of your argumentative nonsense. Who really cares? I most certainly do not!
I am more looking forward to Sam Perrin’s reply to my answer to her accusations. At least she seems a more logical person, who does not just revert to silly 40-year-old newspaper reports about ‘vampires’ (as you apparently find no alternative to keep doing). I believe I made some valid points to her, Anthony. But these were made to her – not yourself.
If she chooses to come back to my points here, I will of course answer her in full. If she chooses not to, that is, of course, her prerogative.
But this stupid ‘vampire conversation’ you seem bent on continuing here (with myself, at least) is a complete waste of everybody’s time – not least my own!
Finally you state:
“You’re correct and I will. So will you be making any donations to the trust?”
If you read my reply properly, you would have seen that I said ‘no’ I would not. I ‘ve already told you why . . . As I never committed any damage at Highgate Cemetery in the first place, why would you think I should be obliged to do so?
David Farrant, President, BPOS.
My points, stand David.
The issue is this: you say Manchester – and Manchester alone – was responsible for perpetuating the idea that a vampire haunted Highgate Cemetery. He wasn’t. You did, too. By your own admittance, you went “along with another person’s innane [sic] wild assertions about a ‘blood-sucking vampire’, but again, this was only because this was the ‘angle’ the Press and television wanted at the time”.
Whether you believe in them or not is irrelevant. The fact is, you were complicit in perpetuating the theory. So to say you never said a vampire haunted the cemetery – or never gave the impression one didn’t – is a lie.
Your cheap jibes and sidetracking can’t change the facts.
I can see why you’re trying to dismiss “silly 40-year-old newspaper reports” offhand – they undermine the nonsense you’re perpetuating here.
Regarding donating to the trust, I did read carefully – you said, “Sorry Sam, no donation towards the volunteers’ Christmas party this year.” She wasn’t suggesting donations to the party, but to the trust itself.
As to your final point, “As I never committed any damage at Highgate Cemetery in the first place, why would you think I should be obliged to do so?” Because you also acknowledged that in the wake of the vampire theory – which you played a part in (see your previous “The worst I did was to go along with another person’s innane [sic] wild assertions about a ‘blood-sucking vampire’” comment) – that there was a sharp increase in vandalism at the cemetery, which means you acknowledge a link. Therefore, you’re also acknowledging a part in it. Inadvertently, of course, because you shot yourself in the foot with such comments.
Now, considering you’ve also been banking off the case for some years, perpetually associating yourself with it, I’d think you’d have *some* concern for what happened in the wake of your stunts. Some sense of culpability, as opposed to full responsibility.
Therefore, I don’t see why you have an issue with donating to the trust – except selfishness.
I hope that answers your questions.
Keep in mind, David, it was a *volunteer* who works at the cemetery who suggested it in the first place. And if you think I’d only expect you to follow through with a charitable donation, I don’t – Manchester should cough up, too.
Think of it as doing something decent for a change. No one said donate *all* your earnings, but I bet the trust would love to receive a cheque signed “David Farrant”.
And if you can’t spare the change, how about doing some volunteer work, yourself? It’s not like you’re too busy – oh, wait. You’ve got *another* vampire talk in the pipeline…
Dear Anthony (and Samatha for that matter),
I have noted your latest comments, but as I have already explained (yet again) I am not prepared to answer the ins and outs of silly vampires with you, on here, and possibly bore people to death in the process.
Nor am I willing to provide implied evidence of my ‘guilt’ regarding vandalism at Highgate Cemetery by making monetary donations which single me out from any other Highgate resident or appreciator of cemeteries. In fact I find your game plan here rather distasteful and vulgar, especially in light of your failure to acknowledge my comment that even if I WAS guilty of what you seem to think I am I spent 2 years and 8 months in prison after being tried by a jury – an elected one mind, not a rabble on an internet forum – and nearly died on hunger strike. Surely the penal system in the UK is meaningless to you if 2 years and 8 months in prison is insufficient ‘penance’, and I am expected to financially subsidise my apparent victim – the cemetery itself – for the rest of my life. Perhaps you would have preferred me to be deported to Australia, where you could ‘judge’ me as you perpetually presume to do, in person on a daily basis.
Thank you for your loaded suggestion that I do some voluntary work for the cemetery. As you are aware unlike the readers who you are suggesting this in front of, I have severely limited mobility following a spinal injury some years back. So weeding is not really my thing. Even if the upkeep of a privately run enterprise was any of my business or concern.
However, not as a tacit implication of guilt but with the same courtesy I extend to many interested parties who enjoy talks about the cemetery’s hauntings, I would be more than happy to give a talk as part of Highgate Cemetery’s forthcoming events programme. After all, the immense popularity of Highgate Cemetery for paying visitors largely stems from its haunted reputation, and therefore in a sense because of myself and my own involvement with this. Even if 1 in 10 visitors a year was inspired to visit because of this, this would represent around £23,000 worth of income a year. So I am sure a talk by myself would be a great crowd puller and the Friends could then make money off my back including tales of my arrest legitimately, rather than in the manner which they presently do.
If the Friends of Highgate Cemetery would like to discuss me giving a talk for their members they are more than welcome to contact me. Perhaps we could time it for Hallowe’en. I might even waive my speakers fee so they can upgrade the Christmas party from happy hour at the Gatehouse to the Woodman, where I understand that a glass of wine will set you back £8 a time. Everything comes down to money in the end, after all, or so you are encouraging us to believe. And if we don’t get enough on the door for that, I’m sure multi-millionnaire John Lydon will pick up the tab.
All the best,
David Farrant,
President British Psychic and Occult Society.
Dear David,
“I have noted your latest comments, but as I have already explained (yet again) I am not prepared to answer the ins and outs of silly vampires with you, on here, and possibly bore people to death in the process.”
Translation: “Oops, I’ve been busted with my own words! Off to do another vampire talk…”
“Nor am I willing to provide implied evidence of my ‘guilt’ regarding vandalism at Highgate Cemetery by making monetary donations which single me out from any other Highgate resident or appreciator of cemeteries.”
No one’s asking you to. If you admit that vandalism increased in the wake of your stunts, then you’re admitting a connection. The problem is, you tried holding Manchester responsible because he instigated the vampire angle. However, you’ve already admitted to going along with it, too – thus making you culpable. Nice one.
In terms of your sentence, try not to muddy the issue: we’re not saying you *actually* vandalised graves. As I’ve explained to you before, I agree, you were a scapegoat.
“Thank you for your loaded suggestion that I do some voluntary work for the cemetery. As you are aware unlike the readers who you are suggesting this in front of, I have severely limited mobility following a spinal injury some years back. So weeding is not really my thing. Even if the upkeep of a privately run enterprise was any of my business or concern.”
They’re not loaded. If you admit some degree of culpability – which you tried to palming off solely to Manchester, despite admitting that you “went along with it” – then you’re culpable, too.
As to your mobility limits, I do not know the extent of that. And I’m certainly not making light of it. But nor did I specify *what* you could do there. Ask Sam for further details on what you can offer. That said, you’re not *carried* to the various places you gallivant about (including the various talks you give and in some instances, even appearing outside the cemetery gates), so it’s not like you’re totally demobilised. In lieu of that, I’m sure donations would be appreciated.
In terms of giving a talk in lieu of donations, go for it. Contact the cemetery and make your offer. Let’s see what they say.
“No one’s asking you to. If you admit that vandalism increased in the wake of your stunts, then you’re admitting a connection. The problem is, you tried holding Manchester responsible because he instigated the vampire angle. However, you’ve already admitted to going along with it, too – thus making you culpable. Nice one.”
[So repeats Mr. Anthony Hogg once again ignoring a main point I have made in my posts here]
No, Anthony, what I actually said was (which you’ve apparently chosen to ignore in favour of your nebulous accusations of being responsible for causing damage, which you have NOT explained or specified), was that the SERIOUS vandalisim involving the staking of corpses, only began after Manchester first appeared on National television, produced a wooden stake concealed down his trousers, and proceeded to instruct viewers on the correct way to ‘stake vampires’.
This (Manchester’s) statement was ‘rewarded’ by all sorts of vandals and similar hooligans entering Highgate Cemetery and actually taking his advice. The result? These people began a spree of removing the Victorian coffins from shelves in vaults in the cemetery, and the corpses inside having stakes driven through them. THAT is what I was talking about – as you well know.
So the question is, why are you suggesting that I should be held responsible for this specific form of serious on-going vandalism? And, if not, what other kind of vandalism were you referring to?
I was never accused of ‘staking’ any corpses. Nor did I personally offer such kind of advice. Mr. Manchester did, so why do you keep ignoring this major point?
Please explain to us all (including Sam Perrin), what other type of vandalism did you think I was referring to in my clear replies here. We are all waiting!
David Farrant, President, BPOS
“No, Anthony, what I actually said was (which you’ve apparently chosen to ignore in favour of your nebulous accusations of being responsible for causing damage, which you have NOT explained or specified), was that the SERIOUS vandalisim involving the staking of corpses, only began after Manchester first appeared on National television, produced a wooden stake concealed down his trousers, and proceeded to instruct viewers on the correct way to ‘stake vampires’.”
I haven’t ignored it. I’ve addressed it. Repeatedly. Let me reiterate: if you admit that vandalism increased in the wake of your stunts at the cemetery, i.e. helping to promote the vampire angle, yourself, then you are admitting a degree of culpability. By deferring to Manchester, you’re deliberately overlooking your own part in the charade. Which, I might add, you continued to do after the mass vampire hunt. As *you* said: “The worst I did was to go along with another person’s innane [sic] wild assertions about a ‘blood-sucking vampire’, but again, this was only because this was the ‘angle’ the Press and television wanted at the time – ‘vampires’ apparently selling more newspapers or attracting more interested audiences for TV.”
There’s no wiggling out of that, David. Your words.
“This (Manchester’s) statement was ‘rewarded’ by all sorts of vandals and similar hooligans entering Highgate Cemetery and actually taking his advice. The result? These people began a spree of removing the Victorian coffins from shelves in vaults in the cemetery, and the corpses inside having stakes driven through them. THAT is what I was talking about – as you well know.”
And your press appearances, in conjunction with the vampire theory – which you admit you “went along” with – cemented the deal. Gave it a sense of “validation”. As I said, whether you believed in them or not is irrelevant. What’s relevant is that you *went along* with it to the media. If you suggest that Manchester should be blamed for what happened afterward, by your own logic, so are you.
“So the question is, why are you suggesting that I should be held responsible for this specific form of serious on-going vandalism? And, if not, what other kind of vandalism were you referring to?”
What I’m suggesting, as I outlined in the response, above, is that if you agree that vandalism increased in the wake of Manchester’s vampire theory appearing in the media, then you are responsible, too. Again, by your own logic, because you “went along with it”.
“I was never accused of ‘staking’ any corpses. Nor did I personally offer such kind of advice. Mr. Manchester did, so why do you keep ignoring this major point?”
No, you were accused of intending to stake them in the wake of your August 1970 arrest. I agree that the case against you was weak. However, your participation in the 24 Hours interview held soon after your arrest, did you no favours. For someone who blames media for misrepresenting you, you certainly played along with them quite a bit – as your own “The worst I did” comment reveals.
“Please explain to us all (including Sam Perrin), what other type of vandalism did you think I was referring to in my clear replies here. We are all waiting!”
I did not refer to any specific forms of vandalism; I only alluded to the type you said occurred in the wake of Manchester’s proclamations. Which, again, by your own logic, you are also responsible for. Manchester claimed you intended to dispatch the vampire by such and such a means. No immediate rebuttal from yourself. Indeed, at that point, you were even still letting him call himself the President of the British Occult Society (according to your version of events).
As I’ve already said, David, it’s time the lot of you grew up. Please stop using Highgate Cemetery to self-aggrandise and self-promote: it’s in terrible taste and you’re all making a mockery of yourselves without even realising it. Do something positive with your lives for a change. I’m not going to be dragged into this infantile willy-waving contest any further.
Sam I don’t think you will find many people (except perhaps Manchester) who will disagree with you that the media fuelled ‘vampire flap’ had (for a certain period of time) lead to an increase in the vandalism and desecration at Highgate Cemetery, but David does make a good point that mother nature herself through decades of neglect had a big hand in its decline.
Nevertheless I can well understand both yours and the FoHC’s distaste at any mention of the words vampire and black magic; let alone individuals appearing to ‘cash-in’ on it. However, on the flip side one can also argue that this media driven flap had, in the long run, helped highlight the plight of the cemetery and so geared a community into positive, collective action re the FoHC.
Furthermore, and for better or worse, this very media- induced vampire flap has since become something of an urban legend; so people do like to talk about it, and that includes visitors to the cemetery; as I’m sure you can personally attest! Personally, I think the FoHC should now seriously think about reconciling itself to and embracing this legend – warts and all. Talkie ownership as it were. And it would be all the better for it too; even if just as a cautionary tale if nothing else. Many of our old buildings and ancient sites of heritage have the odd ghost story or legend attached to them and their custodians (such as the National Trust and English Heritage) have no trouble incorporating these into their programs – so why not Highgate cemetery?
Redmond, I already use the story as a cautionary tale : one warning tourists about fame-hungry megalomaniacs using the cemetery to further their own tragic profiles. No positive publicity has ever been generated as a result of this little fairy tale. And, for the record, I have not had ONE person asking about vampires for years. They request to see REAL people like Michael Faraday or Elizabeth Siddal. Please, stop perpetuating this ridiculous story created from nothing but the overwhelming desire for attention by two sad little men and their associates.
I’m sorry Sam but I do beg to differ: on two of the tours I’ve attended the subject of the vampire was raised. They didn’t get the best reaction to be fair, but after forty odd years just where is the harm? The future and security of the cemetery has now been secured. Do you honestly believe that this would all be put in jeopardy if the FoHC were more accommodating to the odd fortean and paranormal enthusiast?
Like it our not or believe in it or not, the urban legend of the Highgate Vampire legend is now an idellible part of the cemetery’s history and is here to stay I can assure you. And that would be still the case even if Messrs David Farrant and Sean Manchester were to retire from it – as thanks to the internet it has long gone global and taken on a life of it’s own.
Sam we can just as passionate about the cemetery in terms of it’s history, architecture and it’s ‘permanent residents’ AND still have an interest in it’s associated vampire legend. It doesn’t have to be a case of either/or.
Speaking of which, to quote from you:
“Please, stop perpetuating this ridiculous story created from nothing but the overwhelming desire for attention by two sad little men and their associates.”
Does this maxim also apply to you Sam? Writing as ‘Spamosphere’ you have also covered the Highgate Vampire case – Stoker too if I recall. As have a plethora of writers and authors; both professional and otherwise i.e. Bill Ellis, Neil Gaiman, Ramsey Campbell, etc.
Are you (and they) also in the wrong?
Samantha, I am sure that your good friend Mr Anthony Hogg will heed your wise words about “fame-hungry megalomaniacs using the cemetery to further their own tragic profiles” on board, and immediately cease writing multiple blogs, creating Facebook groups, giving podcasts, writing books and commenting on every blog entry he can on the world wide web which relates to the Highgate ‘vampire’ thus raising its global profile on a daily basis. After all, he is not interested in the incorporeal paranormal, and focuses purely on dissecting and by default promoting the “overwhelming desire for attention by two sad little men” whose ‘activities’ cause you so much concern – juxtaposed with his own extensive and glamorising blogs about vampirism. Hardly mere ‘cautionary tales’ in his case – in fact, the demonstration of the end result of exactly what you yourself proselytize about, Samantha – easily influenced people taking things too far and not allowing the legend to ‘die down’.
So I am sure that now he understands how lowly this kind of behaviour is considered by the FoHC, Mr Hogg will get a new, less distasteful hobby. After all, the least said about the Highgate ‘vampire’ the better, isn’t that the idea? I am sure he would hate to think that he was in any way encouraging vandalism or interest in the case by repeating ad nauseum anecdotes about people allegedly encouraging this behaviour in the 1970s.
Here’s a thought – it would be a shame for him to remove the results of years and years of promoting the legend of the Highgate ‘vampire’. So maybe he could introduce advertising to his blogs – and donate the results of every ‘click’ which results from a Google search for “Highgate Vampire” to the FoHC. Drinks all round – but not in the Otway, that would be a really irresponsible thing to make jokes about. As I have a relative interred in there I can sympathise with the disgust felt by members of the public who stumble across this ‘in joke’ on the HC Telling Tales volunteers’ forum. Please stop using the ‘sanctity of the tomb’ as fodder for your sick jokes and back-slapping one-upmanship and in-fighting. My deceased relatives didn’t build the tomb in anticipation of it becoming a playground for such a dysfunctional bunch of ego-maniacs, who insist on bragging about their ‘charity work’ – including to each other – rather than having the decency and humility to go on quietly carrying it out simply because it is a good thing to do. By the way – well done on the refurb – if I am not disturbed by raging parties late into the night I look forward to spending eternity emboweled in the ‘mother earth of Highgate Cemetery’ – or at least on my nice new shelf. Imagine the takings on the door then!
Goodbye boys. I’ll let you continue squabbling and willy-waving amongst yourselves.
Sam, I was trying to enter into a meaningful dialogue with you but rather than address all of my points you decide to retreat in a self-righteous huff.
How convenient!
The result of many years of psychological conditioning from the FoHC perhaps?
Good bye Sam; now instead of raising the profile of the Highgate ‘vampire’ on this message board whilst criticising others for doing so, you can go back to what you like doing best – writing blogs which raise the profile of the Highgate ‘vampire’ whilst criticising others for doing so – unless their name is Anthony Hogg.
David,
Let me get this right – you’re comparing my *free* online commentary on the case, against a legend you helped create, playing a part (by your own logic) in its subsequent aftermath and a 40+ career revolving around it, including banking off the thing? Not the same thing, David, but nice try. As I said before, try not to muddy the issue at hand.
And all of that to wiggle out of doing volunteer work or donating to the cemetery? Wow…
Don’t forget fame hungry as well as profiteering Anthony. Something Ms Perrin accuses all of us here of commiting, except for herself of course.
Speaking of profiteering, perhaps Ms Perrin or another member of the FoHC could kindly explain to me the reasons behind the rather extortionate price hikes for what amounts to an overtly restrictive and highly censored one hour tour? In our age of austerity charging a £12 fee for adults and £6 each for their children could leave many a sruggling family crossing it off their to do lists this summer!
Hi Red. The increase in admission fees you’d have to ask the cemetery’s CEO about as this decision had nothing to do with the volunteers. I believe that the fees were increased to fall in line with the National Trust’s pricing structure. As I’m sure you’re aware, the cemetery is still run by a charity as it receives no grants from the local council and and I don’t believe that anyone profits from the admission fees. You are most welcome to ring the cemetery’s office during the week to enquire how this money is spent if you wish to know more. Alternatively you can address your concerns directly to the Charity Commission if you have any evidence of wrong doing. I happen to be a lifelong horror fan and do appreciate that while many books, films and plays have been influenced by HC, desecration and vandalism of any cemetery is still a pretty poor show, regardless of the reason behind it. My blog on The Highgate Vampire merely dissects how The Bish’s book is a blatant plagiarism of Bram Stoker’s Dracula. But I’m guessing you didn’t read that far. Of course, if you’d care to discuss all of this civilly and rationally in person, I will be at the Cemetery this Sunday the 4th from 11 onwards.
Well your exit didn’t last long did it Sam? And I see you have chosen to sit on the fence over the fees issue. You don’t want to rock the boat on the good ship FoHC eh? Well, surprise, surprise! And you are in no position to lecture anyone here (save perhaps the Bonky Bishop) about civility or rationality when you haven’t shown much evidence of that yourself.
So thanks but no thanks re your ‘kind’ invitation.
Although the compulsive, half-caste Melbourne resident and petrol monkey Hogg is to be detested for his unjust and unfair persecution of Bishop Seán Manchester, he has stumbled across some small degree of truth that perhaps proves the maxim that even a blind pig can find an acorn. His formula for arriving at Farrant’s culpability, i.e. “if you admit to X then surely Y is true” is absolutely correct. Vandalism did indeed increase in the wake of publicity, hence Farrant must be blamed for the sorry state of the cemetery in the present day.
It has been scientifically established that the “If X, then Y” formula is never wrong, and can be used to establish guilt in Hogg himself, who admits to total obsession with events of more than three decades before he was born and originating blogs, internet posts and Facebook groups on the subject of vampirism almost daily for half a dozen years, and is irrefutably culpable for vandalism, deaths, injuries and mental and physical suffering stemming from vampire hysteria the world over. Some type of atonement is surely in order here, and although I would suggest putting Hogg in a small box and shipping him to Iceland, others may hold a less extreme view.
I should add that in the matter of Bishop Seán Manchester’s culpability for the vandalism following in the wake of Highgate’s publicity and press coverage, Hogg’s formula does not apply. The Bishop’s Holy Orders preclude any error or wrongdoing owing to his sacred role as the earthly representative of Saint Peter and hence The Lord Jesus Christ himself.
“AND NOW FOR SOMETHING COMPLETELY DIFFERENT”, as my friend the late Graham Chapman used to say: Living in Highgate at the time, he often remarked on the much published ”vampire stories’ and associated ‘black magic rites’ that were said to be taking place there. I wonder what he would have made of the autobiography of Punk rock star Jonney Rotten (which I beleve was released after Graham’s death) which details the considerable damage he and his friends caused at the cemetery in the 1970’s. He would have probably applied some humour to his answer, which is indeed what I’m doing here. Let’s forget the asinine ravings of people like Mr. Hogg (who appears to spend his entire life promoting Highate Cemetery for a book he is planning on ‘vampires’) and the claims other others (like Mr. Manchester) that ‘vampires’ really do exist. Its all nonsense, of course, and the end motivation always seems to be creating self publicity.
Anyway I digress. In Graham’s memory, let me invite you to watch this short 4-minuite film made at Highgate Cemetery last May. It was made really to counteract a false claim being made on the Internet that I had been ‘banned’ from Highgate Cemetery. Not apparently true as our film shows.
The link is:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDFbucykcYg&feature=youtu.be
David Farrant.
David,
“AND NOW FOR SOMETHING COMPLETELY DIFFERENT”, as my friend the late Graham Chapman used to say: Living in Highgate at the time, he often remarked on the much published ”vampire stories’ and associated ‘black magic rites’ that were said to be taking place there.”
In the wake of your stunts, yes. Spot the connection.
“I wonder what he would have made of the autobiography of Punk rock star Jonney Rotten (which I beleve was released after Graham’s death) which details the considerable damage he and his friends caused at the cemetery in the 1970′s.”
Also in the wake of popularising the vampire theory. Which you admit to doing.
“He would have probably applied some humour to his answer, which is indeed what I’m doing here.”
I don’t think repeatedly misrepresenting an issue is entirely humourous. It just means you’re not a very credible person.
“Let’s forget the asinine ravings of people like Mr. Hogg (who appears to spend his entire life promoting Highate Cemetery for a book he is planning on ‘vampires’) and the claims other others (like Mr. Manchester) that ‘vampires’ really do exist. Its all nonsense, of course, and the end motivation always seems to be creating self publicity.”
My “entire life”? David, my delvings into the case began properly in 2006. You’re still banging on about it, 43 years later. The majority of your publications are either about it or relate to it. Perspective, please.
I haven’t spent my “entire life” promoting Highgate Cemetery and I certainly haven’t done that in conjunction with a book I’m planning. That idea came much later, indeed, Redmond was one of the people to suggest it.
As to self publicity (projecting again, I see) I began work on this anonymously before Manny and the Sockpuppets publicly outed me. Even still, I don’t bang on about myself or how many bottles of wine I tip back in a public space. I leave that to you.
As to believing in vampires – you’re again, grossly distorting the issue. What I can say, is that you certainly fed Manchester’s theory/legend. As you already know, but refuse to take responsibility for, because it would undermine what you’ve been promoting for the last 20 odd years, in which your career boils down to finding new ways of saying “I don’t believe in bloodsucking vampires (but I do believe in the psychic variety)”.
“I don’t think repeatedly misrepresenting an issue is entirely humourous. It just means you’re not a very credible person”. [So raves Mr. Anthony Hogg].
No, Anthony, it just means that you’re the one with absolutely no sense of humour, Simple as that!
Good luck with your book anyway. But you must be pretty desperate in your research to keep dredging up a ‘vampire event’ of over 40 years old as the prime basis for any of your material. When you include myself, it is even funnier in a way, because I have explained to you on countless occasions that I don’t even believe in the existence of vampires, in any form or another.
You see, Anthony, you only want to accept ‘facts’ which fit in with your own preconceived theories
I once asked you what you really thought psychic phenomenon were. You replied that ‘ghosts’ were really demons sent by the devil to try and fool the living that they were really the spirits of loved one’s, although in reality, really the devil’s advocates in disguise! At first I thought you were joking, but learned, after correspondence with you, that you were deadly serious.
Is it really any wonder that I do not wish to discuss psychic phenomena with anybody so bigoted as yourself?
I don’t think so!
Enough said really.
David Farrant.
David,
“No, Anthony, it just means that you’re the one with absolutely no sense of humour, Simple as that!”
So because I don’t find your attempts to warp the issues under the guise of “humour” (even though they echo what you write, seriously), I must not have a sense of humour? Incorrect. I do find your tactics amusing, though.
“Good luck with your book anyway. But you must be pretty desperate in your research to keep dredging up a ‘vampire event’ of over 40 years old as the prime basis for any of your material. When you include myself, it is even funnier in a way, because I have explained to you on countless occasions that I don’t even believe in the existence of vampires, in any form or another.”
Thank you, David. I appreciate that. But it’ll console you to know it’s a loooooooooong way off completion. There’s so many damn sources to sort through. I can tell that the bibliography I’ve compiled, alone, stretches to about 14 pages. And most of that is stuff I’ve got to get. And rest assured, not all of it is that old. And I fail to see what point you’re making about the age of the articles, as you rely on them in your own writings. Indeed, if it wasn’t for those same sources, you wouldn’t still be covering this thing. Don’t look a gift horse in the mouth, mate.
If you want to talk about desperation and dredging up a 40 year old case, though – I defer to your own books, talks, etc. – the latter of which you even recently promoted on your blog. It’s not “desperate” for someone to write about something they’re interested in.
As to telling me you don’t believe in vampires in any shape or form, it comes down to interpretation. The characteristics you bestowed on your own vamp (and you did call and refer to it is as a vampire, by the way) perfectly match what a psychic vampire is. Indeed, your missus even used that exact term in the intro to “Out of the Shadows”. So if you’ve got a problem with me saying it, take it up with her, too. Unless you’re scared of sleeping on the couch that night…
“You see, Anthony, you only want to accept ‘facts’ which fit in with your own preconceived theories”
No, I present facts in accordance with cross-referencing sources. It’s what writers do. Somehow, you’re correlating me not swallowing your stories hook, line and sinker with some kind of “bias”. The fact is, you don’t have exclusive domain on the facts. It’s really that simple.
If I have any “preconceived theories”, they’re born from my research, in the same way you conclude that you encountered a psychic vampire at Highgate through your own “investigation”. Not everyone’s gonna reach the same conclusions as you do. That’s normal. And unlike yourself, I’m pretty upfront with what I believe in – you won’t see me pretending to believe in “bloodsucking vampires” or doing things just because it’s “what the media wanted”.
“I once asked you what you really thought psychic phenomenon were. You replied that ‘ghosts’ were really demons sent by the devil to try and fool the living that they were really the spirits of loved one’s, although in reality, really the devil’s advocates in disguise! At first I thought you were joking, but learned, after correspondence with you, that you were deadly serious.”
You didn’t ask it once, you asked it several times. And I answered you several times. Across several different forums. And you’ve raised it here, again, in order to attack me. And yes, as I explained, in context with my faith and Protestant theology, if a ghost case was legit, chances are, it’d be a demon. I know this concept is amusing and/or foreign to you – but Google it. You’ll see I’m not the only one who shares that rationale. In the meantime, what is your reasoning here? That my faith-based ideas are ludicrous, but your occultic views aren’t? How is it remotely relevant to the discussion?
The difference is, I make a distinction between faith and evidence (they’re not the same thing) – and I certainly haven’t said a demon haunted the cemetery. Why would I? I have no reliable evidence to make such a claim.
If you’re making a conclusive claim – the onus is on you to provide it, i.e. that a psychic vampire haunted Highgate Cemetery…and has done so since the 19th century. Remember, that’s your job as an “investigator”. If you promote your the supernatural conclusion as “fact” – while deriding the possibility of a literal, bloodsucking vampire – don’t be too surprised if the “evidence” *you* present is scruntinised, too. Substituting one supernatural being for another is not evidence, no matter how “plausible” it may seem by comparison.
There’s two reasons I can think of as to why you get so defensive about it: 1) you don’t understand the extent of how critical thinking, research, etc. work, 2) you faked it. If you have other rationales, feel free to mention them.
“Is it really any wonder that I do not wish to discuss psychic phenomena with anybody so bigoted as yourself?”
That’d be more feasible if you didn’t go out of your way to misrepresent and distort the issues at hand. Dismissing me as “bigoted” is a perfect example – yet in what context have you used that? I haven’t dismissed your right to believe in the occult, etc.
In the meantime, I have my faith; you have yours. I don’t use your faith to attack you; you use mine – on a completely unrelated matter – to attack me. That’s called an ad hominem argument – a logical fallacy. So, no, I’m not “bigoted” in that sense.
In sum, I highly recommend you check out Benjamin Radford’s “Scientific Paranormal Investigation” for how to investigate a paranormal case properly. You’ll find the processes much more rewarding that being a glorified storyteller via sharing virtually unverifiable anecdotes and shoehorning them into own vampire’s appearance in order to create a false sense of consistency.
Oh, and speaking of “preconceived theories”, could you explain what exactly mine are? You keep using that term in other posts, but you never explain what you think I actually believe about the case. So, let’s hear it: what are these “preconceived theories” I’m supposed to have?
“The difference is, I make a distinction between faith and evidence (they’re not the same thing) – and I certainly haven’t said a demon haunted the cemetery. Why would I? I have no reliable evidence to make such a claim.” [So repeats Anthony Hogg].
I’m not attacking your faith, Anthony, just using it as an example of your own hypocrisy. What you are saying, in effect, is that its fine for yourself to, have a faith’, but not alright for anyone else to have one . . . including mystics or occultists. Quite honestly, I am not in the least concerned about your faith; just using this to demonstrate your own fallibility. What do I mean? Well, in your own description of ghosts, you admit to accepting the existence of ‘beings’ or ‘entities, (ghosts or ‘demons’ as you describe them) whose existence cannot be proved. That’s fine. Except you then go on to demand ‘proof’ from anybody who has seen a ‘ghost’ or had a similar psychic experience, saying that if they cannot ‘prove’ this to your standards, such experiences cannot be real or even that the people concerned must be ‘liars’. That to me amounts to pure and simple hypocrisy.
It is no different just because it is a ‘matter of faith’. You cannot prove the existence of an Infinite Intelligence (God for want of a better word), but that does not mean one doesn’t exist. I would personally say (indeed which I have said in so many of my Talks and writings) that you don’t need proof for this, when its already there. Where? Well something obviously brought all Life into existence. Yourself and myself included! Without such a Life-force we would not – could not –exist
Back in 2005/6, I spent 7/8 long months trying to explain this principle to hardened skeptics on the James Randi forum. To no avail because they just couldn’t ‘prove’ the existence of Life by trying to analyze it in a test tube. Life is invisible. But it nevertheless lives; and It is not dependent on human theories or ‘proof to validate its Infinite structure.
You (and many others) just seem unable to grasp this essential fact. In your own case this is rather more extreme, and goes beyond a simple atheistic approach (i.e. there is no God, end of story) in that you go on to criticize others (in this instance myself) for not being able to provide you with the very proof that is simply not available, or a part of, material existence.
When this – or similar – is pointed out to you, you simply revert to arguing about the ‘pro’s and ‘con’s’ of ridiculous ‘vampires’ in which most people on a spiritual path, have simply no interest in whatsoever, (and on this particular Site, I refer specifically to yourself and Mr. Manchester).
I am none-the-less curiously flattered that you have apparently taken so much time to try and analyse the Highgate ‘vampire’ story – which dates back over forty years or more. But I am equally surprised why you keep asking me the same questions which I have already answered in full during a 3-hour interview I gave to your ex-friend Redmond McWilliams and which is not up on my YouTube channel. Most of these were all questions that you yourself sent to Redmond for inclusion in this interview.
It does seem rather bizarre why you should expect me to repeat all my answers to your questions again here; unless it is for the purpose of merely repeating a finished discussion which you are anxious of turning into some extended argument
Well, sorry Anthony. I simply do not have time for that!
David Farrant.
David Farrant’s books are so laughably badly written yet he calls himself a writer.
I’ve never read Sean Manchester’s work, but surely they won’t be as bad as the dyslexic Farrant.
Which of my published books are you referring to Sean (sorry, I mean ‘Judith’!). Perhaps you could quote a paragraph or two from any one of them to demonstrate what you mean? Or even tell us the title of one of the books you’re referring to? Funny you should point out that you’ve read my books but none of ‘Sean Manchester’s. Think you’ve just given yourself away again there, Sean!
David Farrant.
The British Occult Society stands with Ms. Perrin in heartily condemning Farrant for his shameless and mercenary exploitation of Highgate Cemetery. For those who wish to experience Bishop Seán Manchester’s heroic vampire hunting exploits in a highly detailed interactive 3D Highgate Cemetery environment, a new game title will premiere in the Fall of 2013. Available in Playstation and Nintendo. All profits will be donated to the Church of Ordo Sancti Graal, a Christian Order founded in 1973. http://p3d.in/Bbe3u
Says ‘VRSexcarpimento’ aka Sean ‘the Bish’ Manchester: ‘The British Occult Society stands with Ms. Perrin in heartily condemning Farrant for his shameless and mercenary exploitation of Highgate Cemetery.’
Only you are not are you Sean! Not too long ago you were mis-quoting her (rather valid) criticisms of you as a ‘vampire hunter’ chapter and verse, and reproduced her image without prior authorisation on your various (albeit closed to the public) FB hate groups. But any excuse to poke a stick at David Farrant eh Sean?
Since the British Occult Society comment of Friday 21 June 2013 at 4:44 pm there have been no comments from anyone remotely connected to Seán Manchester, least of all from Seán Manchester himself, on this thread.
An investigation of the IP identity of such pretenders as “VRSexcarpimento” et al will expose these trouble-makers as members of the Farrant clique attempting to incite yet more hatred against Seán Manchester who is on record as saying that the wanton vandalism at Highgate Cemetery significantly decreased following the media focus on the place from 1970. This is backed by facts gleaned from the police and Camden Council who held ownership of the graveyard in the twilight period between the private cemetery company and FoHC trust.
This will be the final contribution to this thread from those genuinely supportive of Seán Manchester, so any further attempts to mislead will be seen to be transparently fraudulent.
Is that really your final word on the subject Sean? Just where have we heard that before! lol And where are these genuine supporters of yours? We can only see you here under your various guises.
Please remember that the socks from your bottom drawer do not count!
To reiterate: as founder of Ordo Sancti Graal and apostolic successor to the Bishop of Glastonbury, Seán Manchester is too absorbed with ecclesiastical matters to even be aware of the secular piffle published by the ‘Kentish Towner’ and its ilk. And given his status as a celebrated author, he can hardly be expected to address the hundreds of references to him made over the Internet daily.
Oh come on, “VRSexcarpimento,” anyone can link their username to a webpage that is nothing to do with what they are pretending to be. The webpage is genuine enough. “VRSexcarpimento” is not and his comments pretending to be a “Seán Manchester” supporter are peppered with error. I agree that the whole purpose of the “VRSexcarpimento” charade is to plant a “heckler” in the crowd to stimulate anti-Seán Manchester rehetoric.
I, too, will not be commenting any further.
Queer as a nine bob note! The account calling itself “Vebjørn Hästehufvud” purports to be a supporter of Bishop Seán Manchester, yet his failure to apply the title “Bishop” when referring to Seán Manchester reveals his antipathy and exposes him as one trying to lay a convenient smokescreen in hopes of covering up David Farrant’s past peccadilloes, such as his clandestine dealings with Lady Margarete Armytage and subsequent betrayal of the YHRS.
Just to elaborate on my previous comment ,,,
Any pretender can link their name when posting on here to a webpage that is nothing to do with them to give the impression that they are somehow genuine. This is what “VRSexcarpimento” is doing while attempting to pass himself off as a sympathiser of Seán Manchester which he is not. The reason he is doing this (and not for the first time) is to stimulate antipathy towards Seán Manchester who ignores these arguments and controversies, and has only been supported on this thread by one genuine group of sympathisers, ie the BOS remnant. Until, that is, I came along, and this really is my final post on here.
For the record, “VRSexcarpimento” is a trolling sockpuppet who also goes by the name of “Arthur Saxon” (believed to be Redmond McWilliams). This same “Arthur Saxon” was running another fake Facebook page (besides his own) where he was impersonating me until rumbled a few days ago. He first appeared on Facebook singing the praises of Seán Manchester and claiming to be something he was not. Nobody was taken in and he was banned from various groups he had joined. Almost simultaneously he showed his true colours and began singing the praises of David Farrant. He admitted he had always been a Farrant supporter.
Shortly after that “Arthur Saxon” appeared to fall silent. Then I was impersonated on Facebook by him as he attempted cause trouble for me by doing things I would not do in my name. One of these was to “rejoin” a group I had left etc.
So beware of “VRSexcarpimento” aka “Arthur Saxon” aka (probably) Redmond McWilliams.
Nice try Sean but no cigar.
‘For the record’ (lol) I am neither ‘Arthur Saxon’ or “VRSexcarpimento.” And why would I even bother hiding behind an alias when I am posting here as myself?
In fact I’m quite happy to say what I have to say… and under my own name. I’m holding nothing back. It’s just a pity you can’t be as brave as I Sean, but I suppose dem’s da breaks!
Besides, if I were to tempted to operate a sockpuppet here.. even just for a laugh; one thing I would not do is use racial slurs or innuendos to get a rise… even in jest. Which “VRSexcarpimento” has done repeatedly!
Yes folks, be under no illusion: ‘Vebjørn Hästehufvud’ is not his real name; though he continentally insists that it is. He also passes himself off as a Swedish friend of the Bishop’s but I know different. He had originally stated that he was an ‘independent researcher’ but he got busted for that too!
The last recorded Hästehufvud was one Anders Eriksson Hästehufvud who died in… wait for it… 1657! He was was a Swedish officer, governor of the Estonia province between 1617–1619 and Governors-General of the Livonia province 1628.
1657!?
So unless our ‘Vebjørn’ is a time traveller from our distant past or someone who had been preserved cryogenically (à la Adam Adamant) for over 350 years – odds are that he is just another of the Bishop’s assortment of old socks!
Link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_Eriksson_H%C3%A4stehufvud
continentally?! That should have been continually… bloody predictive text! lol
David,
“I’m not attacking your faith, Anthony, just using it as an example of your own hypocrisy.”
There’s nothing hypocritical about it. I make a distinction between faith and presenting something as factually true, supported by evidence. If you assert that a psychic vampire haunted Highgate Cemetery and present this as fact, the onus is on you to prove it.
“What you are saying, in effect, is that its fine for yourself to, have a faith’, but not alright for anyone else to have one . . . including mystics or occultists.”
That’s not what I’m saying at all.
“Quite honestly, I am not in the least concerned about your faith; just using this to demonstrate your own fallibility. What do I mean? Well, in your own description of ghosts, you admit to accepting the existence of ‘beings’ or ‘entities, (ghosts or ‘demons’ as you describe them) whose existence cannot be proved. That’s fine. Except you then go on to demand ‘proof’ from anybody who has seen a ‘ghost’ or had a similar psychic experience, saying that if they cannot ‘prove’ this to your standards, such experiences cannot be real or even that the people concerned must be ‘liars’. That to me amounts to pure and simple hypocrisy.”
Yes. Because I make a distinction between believing something exists, to asserting it does under the guise of an “investigator” such as yourself. Especially as you make a point about using scientific equipment (thermometers, etc.) during your investigations. Once again, I highly recommend Radford’s book for how to do a proper investigation. I have been clear about the logic behind my own faith; I didn’t say it was scientific or provable with scientific evidence. That’s the distinction.
“It is no different just because it is a ‘matter of faith’. You cannot prove the existence of an Infinite Intelligence (God for want of a better word), but that does not mean one doesn’t exist. I would personally say (indeed which I have said in so many of my Talks and writings) that you don’t need proof for this, when its already there. Where? Well something obviously brought all Life into existence. Yourself and myself included! Without such a Life-force we would not – could not –exist”
Reductio ad absurdum. As I said, there’s a distinction between believing something exists, as opposed to proving it does – as your works attempt to (they don’t). You bill yourself as a “psychic investigator”, i.e. a form of parapsychologist. By your own logic, your tools for conducting such “investigations” are pointless, because of your own “preconceived theories” on the supernatural.
“Back in 2005/6, I spent 7/8 long months trying to explain this principle to hardened skeptics on the James Randi forum. To no avail because they just couldn’t ‘prove’ the existence of Life by trying to analyze it in a test tube. Life is invisible. But it nevertheless lives; and It is not dependent on human theories or ‘proof to validate its Infinite structure.”
And time and time again, they debunked what you were presenting to them, because it’s full of logical holes. As to “hardened skeptics”… you were posting suppositions on the supernatural… on a skeptic board. Yet, you seem surprised by their reaction.
“You (and many others) just seem unable to grasp this essential fact. In your own case this is rather more extreme, and goes beyond a simple atheistic approach (i.e. there is no God, end of story) in that you go on to criticize others (in this instance myself) for not being able to provide you with the very proof that is simply not available, or a part of, material existence.”
Not at all. It simply means if you assert something is true, present it as fact, use dubious “evidence” (anecdotes, etc.) to back it up, expect it to be scrutinised. That’s what happens in any field conveying “facts”. When I ask for proof, I am very specific. For instance, if you claim the cemetery has been haunted by a psychic vampire since the 19th century, then surely you have a source for this claim. As yet, you haven’t come up with one – even though you’ve been making the same claim since 1975. At least. Essentially, the evidence I ask from you is how you built your case and reached your conclusions – not whether you can prove the existence of the supernatural, itself.
“When this – or similar – is pointed out to you, you simply revert to arguing about the ‘pro’s and ‘con’s’ of ridiculous ‘vampires’ in which most people on a spiritual path, have simply no interest in whatsoever, (and on this particular Site, I refer specifically to yourself and Mr. Manchester).”
No, I don’t. If you say no one has an interest in the vampire angle, one can only wonder why you played along with the vampire theory in the first place (by your own admittance), and why so much of your work is devoted to covering – or touching on – your main claim to fame, i.e. the Highgate Vampire. Don’t be duplicitous about this, David.
“I am none-the-less curiously flattered that you have apparently taken so much time to try and analyse the Highgate ‘vampire’ story – which dates back over forty years or more. But I am equally surprised why you keep asking me the same questions which I have already answered in full during a 3-hour interview I gave to your ex-friend Redmond McWilliams and which is not up on my YouTube channel. Most of these were all questions that you yourself sent to Redmond for inclusion in this interview.”
I don’t keep asking you the same questions. And I haven’t seen all the answers to the questions in your long, rambling evasive responses. For instance, I was told the questions regarding Manchester had been cut out and were meant to appear elsewhere. They haven’t, yet.
“It does seem rather bizarre why you should expect me to repeat all my answers to your questions again here; unless it is for the purpose of merely repeating a finished discussion which you are anxious of turning into some extended argument”
I’m not sure what you’re reading, David. Probably something else. In the meantime, could you explain what my “preconceived theories” are. You evaded that one.
As to you, “British Occult Society” – you shouldn’t be posting under that name. That society died in 1988. I supposed it’s no different to your hijacking of another dead name – Arminius Vambrey – to post your usual drivel.
Amazingly enough, I agree with “Vebjørn Hästehufvud”‘s conclusion about the “heckler”, but it does look silly when he’s making such points while posting here under his other alias, “British Occult Society”.
“There’s nothing hypocritical about it. I make a distinction between faith and presenting something as factually true, supported by evidence. If you assert that a psychic vampire haunted Highgate Cemetery and present this as fact, the onus is on you to prove it.”
[So raves Anthony Hogg after ignoring most of the other points – like spiritual existence which I put to him]
You’ve really summed it up in this short paragraph Anthony. I have never asserted that a ‘psychic vampire’, or any other type of ‘vampire’ haunted Highgate Cemetery. It is YOURSELF who has projected this onto me; a projection in fact of your OWN assumption that I believe in psychic vampires. I do not. I usually refer to the ‘Highgate ghost’ as an entity or unexplained phenomenon.
I have told you on numerous occasions that I do not accept the existence of ‘vampires’ (psychic or otherwise) just as I am telling you again here. Its very simple and plain. So why do you persist in trying to change my meaning?
You say you have not listened to my recorded answers to your questions via Redmond. Then how could you possibly know if I was avoiding any of them!?
Likewise, your assumption that we cut questions and answers from the interview is again incorrect. This was made for an entirely different film, as Redmond can attest. Nothing has been cut from it or, to spell it out for you again, (as you just seem incapable of understanding anything), that film remains uncut and intact. The fact that I have chosen not to release it at the moment is an entirely different matter. I will do so when I consider the time is right. In fact, that film cannot really be disguised as anything else but ‘comedy value’ as the film crew couldn’t contain laughter throughout many parts of it! (Especially when I was being asked about Mr. Manchester’s claims to have ‘staked the King Vampire’ and his written claim to have stripped naked before adorning a ‘magical robe’ to stake a giant ‘vampire spider’ which attacked had him!).
You claim to be a serious researcher. But more often you come across as someone who lives in some sort of ‘vampire fantasy world’ – rather like Mr. Manchester!
David Farrant
What Redmond McWilliams will never be able to admit is that his cabal master David Farrant continues to rewrite history where Bishop Seán Manchester is concerned. For example, there was a sword fight between Farrant and Seán Manchester (then not yet vested in Holy Orders) in 1984 that was covered extensively in the media. Farrant has spuriously claimed that the Bishop was clothed in “effeminate white tights” and “at one point during the duel, he tripped on a tree root and I took advantage of this dilemma and laid the flat of my sword against his seat.” A swordsman of Seán Manchester’s calibre can hardly be imagined to have made such an error, let alone yelped with pain, as is claimed. In addition, Seán Manchester was wearing black trousers, as all the pictures clearly indicate; including those published in City Limits magazine. The newspaper coverage of the time accurately reported that Seán Manchester was the winner of the sword fight. If this were not so, surely Farrant would have challenged the newspapers and demanded a retraction. But he did not. He supported what they wrote in their article and failed to contradict what really happened for decades afterwards.
Yes ‘VRSexcarpimento’ (or whoever you really are), Mr. Manchester wore black breeches and duelling boots for the photoshoot which took place before our 1984 duel to promote it (and which he can be seen wearing in the July edition of the magazine City Limits), but during the actual ‘confrontation’ itself, he wore effeminate white (and tight) duelling breeches. He wanted to win this duel because in previous duels he had always lost (in 1973 he was chased off our appointed meeting place on Hampstead Heath by ‘laughing school children as reported by the Sunday Mirror, and in 1978 he claimed to have been killed after a duel we’d had in Northern France). So I took pity on him and agreed to let him ‘win’ this time!
Hope this clarifies that for you!
David Farrant.
You winning a duel David? You were once Rod Hull’s stunt double, you couldn’t duel yourself away from a wet paper bag!
Don’t school kids still shout at you ‘Where’s Emu?’. Well we know where he is… it’s a fella now called Redmond!
Well, I must have won ‘Judith’, mustn’t I,? if Mr. Manchester put out a Press Release (under an alias of course) saying that I’d killed him! I once asked him about this when he came to visit me at my studio flat, (and I have this on tape) and he told me the ‘ending’. . . Everyone had thought he was ‘dead’, but he was later discovered to be still alive and taken to a French Convent and nursed back to life. That was his proposed story, anyway, until I got a visit from the Highgate CID asking what I’d ‘done with his body’, and he got ‘rumbled’ by the Daily Mirror!
David Farrant
Vampires? Aliens and UFO’s? Demons? Sword duels? This is the most interesting comments section on the whole damn internet!
Ha amazing banter these guys have far too much time on their hands…
David,
“[So raves Anthony Hogg after ignoring most of the other points – like spiritual existence which I put to him]”
I didn’t ignore them. I addressed them. You can’t blame me for your illiteracy.
“You’ve really summed it up in this short paragraph Anthony. I have never asserted that a ‘psychic vampire’, or any other type of ‘vampire’ haunted Highgate Cemetery. It is YOURSELF who has projected this onto me; a projection in fact of your OWN assumption that I believe in psychic vampires. I do not. I usually refer to the ‘Highgate ghost’ as an entity or unexplained phenomenon.”
Yes, you did, David. And you’ve also referred to it as a vampire, as previously noted. So you’re being duplicitous. Again.
“I have told you on numerous occasions that I do not accept the existence of ‘vampires’ (psychic or otherwise) just as I am telling you again here. Its very simple and plain. So why do you persist in trying to change my meaning?”
You said that you saw a being that sapped on your energy and explained it in context with the vampire myth. It’s a psychic vampire. As noted, even your missus calls it that. It’s in her introduction to your autobiography, “Out of the Shadows”. Got a problem with me saying it? Take it up with her, too.
“You say you have not listened to my recorded answers to your questions via Redmond. Then how could you possibly know if I was avoiding any of them!?”
Because that’s not what I said.
“Likewise, your assumption that we cut questions and answers from the interview is again incorrect.”
It’s not an assumption: it’s what I was told, also highlighted by the fact that not all questions from the same interview appear in the finished cut.
“This was made for an entirely different film, as Redmond can attest. Nothing has been cut from it or, to spell it out for you again, (as you just seem incapable of understanding anything), that film remains uncut and intact.”
Again, it’s what I was told, i.e. that the responses to those questions would be hosted elsewhere. Incidentally, I was also told the interview was trimmed, too.
“The fact that I have chosen not to release it at the moment is an entirely different matter.”
No, it’s not – because it upholds what I previously said.
“I will do so when I consider the time is right. In fact, that film cannot really be disguised as anything else but ‘comedy value’ as the film crew couldn’t contain laughter throughout many parts of it! (Especially when I was being asked about Mr. Manchester’s claims to have ‘staked the King Vampire’ and his written claim to have stripped naked before adorning a ‘magical robe’ to stake a giant ‘vampire spider’ which attacked had him!).”
In other words, what was part of the original interview, i.e. the parts that got chopped out. As I previously said.
“You claim to be a serious researcher. But more often you come across as someone who lives in some sort of ‘vampire fantasy world’ – rather like Mr. Manchester!”
No, I don’t. In the meantime, you’re yet to clarify what my “preconceived theories” are. Kindly do so, since you made the accusation.
Glen, welcome to the party!
“You said that you saw a being that sapped on your energy and explained it in context with the vampire myth. It’s a psychic vampire. As noted, even your missus calls it that. It’s in her introduction to your autobiography, “Out of the Shadows”. Got a problem with me saying it? Take it up with her, too.” [Thus repeats Mr. Anthony Hogg – for the 100th time!]
All you are doing here, Anthony, is filling up these pages with unsolicited waffle. I did not explain anything ‘in context with the Highgate myth’. You are referring to a completely different article I wrote on the said existence of the incubi and succubi (male and female demons respectively that are reported to visit sleeping humans by night, sometimes having sex with them) which applied to two independent people and which had nothing to do with the Highgate ‘vampire’ case. Della did not call ‘it’ (the Highgate Vampire) a psychic vampire. She was writing in general terms about psychic phenomena and does not believe the Highgate entity has anything to do with vampirism – that is just your interpretation (rather misinterpretation) of something she didn’t even mean. As usual, Anthony, you’ve got it wrong.
I have tried to explain to you on countless occasions, that if I use the term ‘Highgate Vampire’ at all, it is because this name for the entity was adopted by the Press after Mr. Manchester went on television twice in 1970 and said the ghost reported at Highgate Cemetery was really a ‘vampire’. So I only use the term as a point of easy reference. Just as one might refer to the Loch Ness monster – it does not necessarily mean that one believes in its existence one way or the other.
With regard to the 5-part interview I gave to Redmond (which went up on my YouTube channel last year), you have again got your facts badly wrong, Anthony.
When I agreed to do the finished interview (which included answering a mass of bias questions that you personally had supplied to Redmond) it was on the condition of setting straight legitimate facts about the Highgate case, and not discussing Mr. Manchester’s ridiculous allegations about myself which he had personally spreading about myself (albeit by using carefully selected aliases) all over the Internet. But I did agree to do a separate interview about Mr. Manchester’s ‘cuckoo-land’ claims, completely apart from the first – which was the case. This was recorded on a different film AFTER the first interview had been completed. This can be confirmed by Redmond who also conducted the second interview. Sorry, Anthony, but you really are talking a load of bulldust!
It is evidently clear that you yourself DO believe in ‘psychic vampires’, (well you certainly keep endlessly repeating this terminology) by the vast collection of books and articles you have arrayed on vampirism. That’s fine, so do carry on with your ‘research’ – except please stop projecting your warped theories and idea’s onto myself. I really don’t care whether you believe in vampires or not. You can believe in ‘flying kangaroo’s’ for all I care. You may even believe just that for all I know!
David Farrant, President, BPOS
Oh, and by the way, David – thanks for clarifying that you “went along” with Manchester’s duel stories, too.
David,
“All you are doing here, Anthony, is filling up these pages with unsolicited waffle.”
Didn’t know I needed a legal representation to post comments on this blog…
“I did not explain anything ‘in context with the Highgate myth’. You are referring to a completely different article I wrote on the said existence of the incubi and succubi (male and female demons respectively that are reported to visit sleeping humans by night, sometimes having sex with them) which applied to two independent people and which had nothing to do with the Highgate ‘vampire’ case.”
In context with how the vampire myth started and associating it with the psychic vampire you think haunts Highgate Cemetery, yes.
“Della did not call ‘it’ (the Highgate Vampire) a psychic vampire. She was writing in general terms about psychic phenomena and does not believe the Highgate entity has anything to do with vampirism – that is just your interpretation (rather misinterpretation) of something she didn’t even mean. As usual, Anthony, you’ve got it wrong.”
Yes, she did, David. Quote: “Farrant denies their existence [vampires] and asserts that the creature was a form of psychic vampire” (p. iii). You should pay closer attention to what you publish.
“I have tried to explain to you on countless occasions, that if I use the term ‘Highgate Vampire’ at all, it is because this name for the entity was adopted by the Press after Mr. Manchester went on television twice in 1970 and said the ghost reported at Highgate Cemetery was really a ‘vampire’.”
You’ve already admitted that you went along with the same theory. No one made you do it. You chose to. You also mentioned it in context with what you saw. Manchester initiated it; you played it up, too.
“So I only use the term as a point of easy reference. Just as one might refer to the Loch Ness monster – it does not necessarily mean that one believes in its existence one way or the other.”
An entity that just happens to be a vampire of the psychic variety. An entity you use against the backdrop of “actual” vampires, which you equate with sex demons.
“With regard to the 5-part interview I gave to Redmond (which went up on my YouTube channel last year), you have again got your facts badly wrong, Anthony.”
No, I haven’t.
“When I agreed to do the finished interview (which included answering a mass of bias questions that you personally had supplied to Redmond) it was on the condition of setting straight legitimate facts about the Highgate case, and not discussing Mr. Manchester’s ridiculous allegations about myself which he had personally spreading about myself (albeit by using carefully selected aliases) all over the Internet. But I did agree to do a separate interview about Mr. Manchester’s ‘cuckoo-land’ claims, completely apart from the first – which was the case. This was recorded on a different film AFTER the first interview had been completed. This can be confirmed by Redmond who also conducted the second interview. Sorry, Anthony, but you really are talking a load of bulldust!”
Referring to the questions as “biased” (?) is the same thing as referring to “preconceived theories” – they don’t establish *what* the bias is/was. It’s hyperbole with no substance. The only primer for the interview was we could ask “anything”. Indeed, the interview was suggested and filmed by your missus. I thought it was a rather unusual offer at the time especially when it was co-billed with BPOS.
There was no agreement that I was party to in which there’d be a separate interview. The omitted questions – so I was told – were answered, but cut out. The deal was, that you wouldn’t post them, they’d be hosted elsewhere. Like I said, I can only go on what I was told. Again, that’s proved by the fact that not all questions appear in the finished clips. And keep in mind, you said you answered *all* of them. If Redmond wishes to offer further clarity, that’s fine with me – but all I have to do is tap into the initial discussions and post them here.
“It is evidently clear that you yourself DO believe in ‘psychic vampires’, (well you certainly keep endlessly repeating this terminology) by the vast collection of books and articles you have arrayed on vampirism. That’s fine, so do carry on with your ‘research’ – except please stop projecting your warped theories and idea’s onto myself. I really don’t care whether you believe in vampires or not. You can believe in ‘flying kangaroo’s’ for all I care. You may even believe just that for all I know!”
So because I own books on legendary creatures…I must believe in them, too? Does that mean folklorists believe in elves and fairies, too? You’re really starting to scrape the bottom of the barrel now…
“There was no agreement that I was party to in which there’d be a separate interview. The omitted questions – so I was told – were answered, but cut out. The deal was, that you wouldn’t post them, they’d be hosted elsewhere”. [Anthony gets his factswrong – yet again!]
No questions were ‘cut out’ of the interview Anthony. I answered all I was asked and I didn’t even read the questions before beforehand. I didn’t want to. I never do this in interviews. I don’t need to. I know the facts, so don’t need to preconceive answers. I only want to know the subject matter.
Some of your questions may have been included in the Manchester interview, and this might be what is confusing you. If they are in that interview (as sure they are) it would have been because they related directly to Mr. Manchester (your questions, that is as nobody else was interested in that), and I told Redmond not to include them in my main interview. Nothing whatsoever was cut out. Indeed, I also asked Redmond before to bring a tape recorder with him, so you could both (this is when you were co-admin of his Forum remember and before he ‘booted you off’! For some reason he didn’t, but the offer was nevertheless made, as I’m sure Redmond can confirm. The point is academic anyway, because I have the original unedited films, where it can be seen that nothing has been omitted or ‘cut’.
Sorry Anthony; you really will have to try harder than that!
David Farrant, President, BPOS
“I also asked Redmond before to bring a tape recorder with him, so you could both (this is when you were co-admin of his Forum remember and before he ‘booted you off’!”
This line should have included the word ‘check’, as below.
I also asked Redmond before to bring a tape recorder with him, so you could both check (this is when you were co-admin of his Forum remember and before he ‘booted you off’!
David Farrant
Oh, and speaking of owning a bunch of books meaning you believe everything that’s written in them, I’ve also been told you own a lot of vampire books. So, by your own logic…
For Anthony, I can confirm that all the questions on the transcript you had typed out for me were answered by David, and on camera. The Manchester-orientated ones were covered in a separately filmed interview and will be released sometime in the near future. By what means or platform however is yet to be decided.
I hope this has cleared up any possible confusion on your part.
David,
First, some positive points.
Thank you for cutting down on your unnecessary waffle and accusations. As established, your missus *did* say you believed a psychic vampire roamed Highgate Cemetery (“a form of psychic vampire”). Unfortunately, rather than apologise for making false accusations against me (after they’ve been exposed), you’ll of course waffle onto something else. And, of course, add more accusations on top. In that sense, you’re really no better than Manny and his sockpuppets.
It’s also good to see you’ve stopped trying to undermine people’s intelligence here by not flipping back to the “I never said it was a vampire!” routine. You did. And thank goodness you’ve also stopped trying to palm off all the blame for the vampire theory emerging in the first place. As established, you played along with it, too (and you admitted to doing so, as I’ve quoted you) – just like you did with Manchester’s duel nonsense. Yet you also claim you’re misrepresented by the media and misunderstood. Of course, you won’t acknowledge that part of the reason for that is because you falsely represent *yourself*, too. It’s all a game to you, I get that. If it damages your credibility, you don’t care, because…*what* credibility? I think, deep down, you recognise that, which is why you have to obscure the issue by posting loads of guff and taking cheap, flip-around jibes. That you’d resort to making insinuations about books I own, really says a lot.
In the meantime, your next points:
“No questions were ‘cut out’ of the interview Anthony. I answered all I was asked and I didn’t even read the questions before beforehand. I didn’t want to. I never do this in interviews. I don’t need to. I know the facts, so don’t need to preconceive answers. I only want to know the subject matter.”
To avoid going on this merry-go-round, again, see previous comments about questions omitted from the list. This time, read properly.
“Some of your questions may have been included in the Manchester interview, and this might be what is confusing you.”
It’s not confusing me. Those are the specific ones I mentioned.
“If they are in that interview (as sure they are) it would have been because they related directly to Mr. Manchester (your questions, that is as nobody else was interested in that), and I told Redmond not to include them in my main interview.”
Those same questions were part of the overall interview. If these were trimmed from the interview, it means they were “cut”. Which is what I’ve been saying. As I also said, the initial offer was to “ask anything”. The Manchester questions related, specifically, to your own involvement/account.
“Nothing whatsoever was cut out. Indeed, I also asked Redmond before to bring a tape recorder with him, so you could both (this is when you were co-admin of his Forum remember and before he ‘booted you off’! For some reason he didn’t, but the offer was nevertheless made, as I’m sure Redmond can confirm. The point is academic anyway, because I have the original unedited films, where it can be seen that nothing has been omitted or ‘cut’.”
If you acknowledge that the same questions were asked and answered separately, they’re part of the main interview, aren’t they? There wasn’t a “deal” to have them answered separately, per se, but that the clips of them being answered would be hosted elsewhere.
For Anthony, I can indeed confirm that all the questions on the transcript you had typed out for me were answered by David, and on camera. The Manchester-orientated ones were covered in a separately filmed interview and will be released sometime in the near future. By what means or platform however is yet to be decided.
I hope this has cleared up any possible confusion on your part.
“Thank you for cutting down on your unnecessary waffle and accusations. As established, your missus *did* say you believed a psychic vampire roamed Highgate Cemetery (“a form of psychic vampire”). Unfortunately, rather than apologise for making false accusations against me (after they’ve been exposed), you’ll of course waffle onto something else. And, of course, add more accusations on top. In that sense, you’re really no better than Manny and his sockpuppets” [Anthony Hogg]
You haven’t ‘exposed’ anything Anthony, if anything only made yourself look even more pathetic, when I’ve already explained to you here, that Della does not believe the entity reported at Highgate Cemetery has anything to do with a ‘vampire’. If she said that I believed that it was ‘some form of psychic vampire’, she was wrong because I do not believe that at all. It is yourself that has been putting this notion of ‘psychic vampires’ all over the place, not herself.
Vampires do not exist, full stop. Neither do psychic vampires. Its rather like saying there is such a thing as ‘psychic dragons’, when everybody knows that fire-breathing dragons are a myth. Some creatures or humans may be capable of being psychic, yes. But not vampires because they have no existence in the first place!
As for assuming that I hoard books on vampires, this is ludicrous. I hardly ever buy books but have accumulated several occult and ‘vampire books’ simply because when some author or other writes a chapter on my involvement in the Highgate case, I am normally sent a complimentary copy. But that certainly doesn’t mean that I believe everything written in them. So wrong yet again, Anthony!
You have now been set straight about the Redmond film. Too much to expect an apology, I expect!
Now, Anthony, can you please stop being so trivial and pathetic. People here must be getting bored with all this nonsense.
David Farrant, President, BPOS.
Redmond,
Re: the Manchester-orientated questions.
If you’re confirming that they were extracted from the same list of questions, but covered and filmed separately, then I don’t see how I’ve confused the issue. Especially as I certainly don’t recall that being part of the original “ask anything” arrangement proffered by Della.
I am curious, though: why were these culled from the main interview in the first place – going on what you were told, that is, and why would they have been filmed separately and intended-to-be hosted separately? Where the questions substantial enough to warrant a whole other interview or have other questions been interspersed with them?
Please understand Anthony, there was no culling in any shape or form. Regardless of the final format settled on, every question has been more than adequately covered and filmed. Buy yes. we found that there was sufficient material on David’s part to warrant a seperate film on Sean Manchester’s exploits.
Please understand Anthony, there was no culling of the material in any shape or form. Regardless of the final format settled on, every question has been more than adequately covered and filmed. But yes, we found that there was sufficient material on David’s part to warrant a separate film on Sean Manchester’s exploits.
Oops.. sorry, double post!
No worries. Ok, so they weren’t culled from the film – but they were culled from the original questions. My question is why and were the original Manchester-orientated questions interspersed with others? I can’t imagine the ones that didn’t make the main interview were substantial enough to warrant a separate interview all together. Unless the responses were quite long…
http://s9.postimg.org/3mrbogewv/Hogg_Farrant_Argument.jpg
Cheers, Charles.
Erm, that was a criticism of your rhetorical silliness. That you took it as a compliment is astounding.
No, I took it in good humour. Are you singling me out for criticism, Charles?
Why are you avoiding the issue that you took it as a compliment?
Thanking you wasn’t a compliment.
It’s illogical to thank some one for criticism, so I don’t accept that you didn’t take it as a compliment, and are now trying to waffle out of your inconsistency, and want to avoid explaining it.
What’s illogical about it, Charles?
Your avoidance in answering is an admission of guilt in itself, by your own logic. You *still* haven’t answered the issue of why you have taken a criticism as a compliment. Do you always avoid unpleasant subjects?
I didn’t avoid it.
“I didn’t avoid it.”
Simply denying you avoided it is a form of avoiding it. I’ve already established your avoidance behaviour. And I’m *still* waiting for an answer about why you avoid unpleasant subjects.
No you’re not.
Charles, I know you want to stick up for your mate, Dave, but aping the style used here should have some substance behind it, too.
When I refer to avoiding answering questions – that’s because he does. That’s the bit your lil graph ignores. The “preconceived theories” thing is an example. He’s accusing me of bias, etc. and uses the “preconceived theories” thing as a way to undermine what I say. Several times I asked him what my so-called “preconceived theories” are. Several times he avoided it. His latest answer was to say I’ll have to wait a long time to find out… what he thinks my supposed “preconceived theories” are. At least cram in the deliberately evasive angle in your lil graph, Charles.
As to the rest, David asserts things that are simply not true. For instance, having a go at me for referring to his “entity” as a psychic vampire. Well, his missus calls it one, too. When I pointed this out, he said she didn’t – but then, all I had to do was quote her.
Another thing is, saying he never referred to the “entity” as a vampire. He did. Saying that Manchester is primarily responsible for the vampire theory, etc. He’s not.
So why isn’t that stuff in your lil graph, Charles? Hmm? Oh, that’s right. Wouldn’t wanna criticise your chum, eh 😉
Pardon me, solely responsible, not primarily. Manchester is, after all, primarily responsible for that one.
Oh goody, we’re finally on to the part were you slice up someone’s text into tiny bits and insert snarky comments in between. I know that’s your most favourite internet argument technique in the world Anthony, so let’s get started on you!
“Charles, I know you want to stick up for your mate, Dave, but aping the style used here should have some substance behind it, too.”
Nice try, but there’s no evidence Dave is my mate. None. Nada. Do you always jump to conclusions without any evidence whatsoever?
“When I refer to avoiding answering questions – that’s because he does. That’s the bit your lil graph ignores.”
I’ve already established that you avoid answering questions that you find uncomfortable Anthony, so don’t go trying to change the subject to Dave in order to get yourself out of a tight spot.
“The “preconceived theories” thing is an example. He’s accusing me of bias, etc.”
Again, trying to desperately switch the topic to Dave? Nice try, though.
“and uses the “preconceived theories” thing as a way to undermine what I say. Several times I asked him what my so-called “preconceived theories” are. Several times he avoided it. His latest answer was to say I’ll have to wait a long time to find out… what he thinks my supposed “preconceived theories” are.”
Dave, Dave, Dave…do you realize you can’t talk about anything but Dave and his perceived shortcomings? Why do you think you are (I don’t want to say “obsessed”, but the word is obviously appropriate) incapable of normal interaction with people, Anthony?
“At least cram in the deliberately evasive angle in your lil graph, Charles.”
Sorry, you haven’t proven any evasion is “deliberate” and so no changes are warranted in the graph. And until you do, the graph will remain unchanged. What about those other questions you’re avoiding answering? And thanks for not disputing that denial is a form of avoidance, so point proven: you are a chronic avoider.
“As to the rest, David asserts things that are simply not true.”
ZOMG! You’re back onto your favourite subject DAVE again! ; )
“For instance, having a go at me for referring to his “entity” as a psychic vampire. Well, his missus calls it one, too. When I pointed this out, he said she didn’t – but then, all I had to do was quote her.”
Right, you imagining you caught Dave in a technicality represents a big, big victory to you. But you can be caught in technicalities as well. I’ve already done it several times. And I can go on playing your little rhetorical debate game forever, but (and this is the key point, Anthony) *I ain’t obsessed with you*
“Another thing is, saying he never referred to the “entity” as a vampire. He did. Saying that Manchester is primarily responsible for the vampire theory, etc. He’s not.”
Changing the subject to Dave again? Sigh. No, he explained it to you and you don’t accept his explanation. So you have proven you don’t accept his explanation, but nothing more. Pretty pitiful.
“So why isn’t that stuff in your lil graph, Charles? Hmm? Oh, that’s right. Wouldn’t wanna criticise your chum, eh ;)”
Nice try mate, but there’s no evidence at all that Dave is my chum. But thanks for proving my point. How long have you been asserting things on the internet that you have absolutely no evidence for? Maybe you need to read some articles by Benjamin Radford about the burden of proof and Occam’s razor and all that ; ) And how long have you been avoiding answering questions that you find embarrassing or unpleasant?
Charles,
My apologies for making the assumption you were David’s mate. Hope you haven’t taken offence to the connection.
I didn’t change the conclusions on your graph. If I’ve avoided a specific question, i.e. “questions that I find uncomfortable”, pass one over – or others over – and I’ll do my best to answer it.
I didn’t switch the “preconceived topics” theory back to David – I used context. You’re clearly mocking the way I “speak” to him, suggesting you have an issue with the content of my post. Hell, your graph even indicates that by suggesting the questions are answered. Context.
I didn’t imagine I caught David on a technicality – he denied Della had referred to his “entity” as a psychic vampire, I proved she did. Problem?
David,
“You haven’t ‘exposed’ anything Anthony, if anything only made yourself look even more pathetic, when I’ve already explained to you here, that Della does not believe the entity reported at Highgate Cemetery has anything to do with a ‘vampire’. If she said that I believed that it was ‘some form of psychic vampire’, she was wrong because I do not believe that at all. It is yourself that has been putting this notion of ‘psychic vampires’ all over the place, not herself.”
You said that Della didn’t call what you saw a “psychic vampire”. I quoted what she said, confirming she *did* call it that. Note: “some form of psychic vampire”. It’s comparable to saying a Siamese is a “form of cat” – it’s still a cat.
“Vampires do not exist, full stop. Neither do psychic vampires. Its rather like saying there is such a thing as ‘psychic dragons’, when everybody knows that fire-breathing dragons are a myth. Some creatures or humans may be capable of being psychic, yes. But not vampires because they have no existence in the first place!”
Take it up with Della, David.
You seem to have a schizoid approach to the term “vampire” – but only if I mention (well, Della, too) that you think you encountered one. I know that must touch a raw nerve considering the length of time you’ve spent belittling Manchester’s vampire (you know, the same one you “went along with”), but it doesn’t detract from you essentially saying that “it wasn’t a bloodsucking vampire…it was a psychic vampire!”
For further clarity, a psychic vampire “is a person or being who feeds off the “life force” of other living creatures” (Wikipedia). You’ll find that’s the standard definition across the board.
“Vampire” is more flexible than the “bloodsucking” version you keep emphasising. You’d know that, of course, as you also employ the noun to sell your books. Oh, and referring to the nebulous entity as a “vampire”, too. Which actually have done, despite your present (and duplicitous) denials.
“As for assuming that I hoard books on vampires, this is ludicrous. I hardly ever buy books but have accumulated several occult and ‘vampire books’ simply because when some author or other writes a chapter on my involvement in the Highgate case, I am normally sent a complimentary copy. But that certainly doesn’t mean that I believe everything written in them. So wrong yet again, Anthony!”
I didn’t assume. I was told that. Nor did I say you did believe in them because of your ownership of them. I merely used that point to highlight the illogical “point” you tried to parlay against me, i.e. I *must* believe in vampires because I own a lot of books on them. That was a seriously ludicrous statement on your part. And a desperate one.
“You have now been set straight about the Redmond film. Too much to expect an apology, I expect!”
Redmond confirmed that questions on the original “ask anything” list were used to conduct a separate interview. So I wasn’t wrong when I said they were “cut” from the main interview. And there certainly wasn’t a deal – at least, on my end – to change it into a BPOS co-production.
As to expecting an apology, flipping around what I said about your refusal to apologise to me – after you’ve made numerous accusations against myself – without properly justifying or proving them – is a pretty cheap way “hide” your own accountability. And in that spirit, I’m *still* waiting for you to state what my “preconceived theories” are…
“You said that Della didn’t call what you saw a “psychic vampire”. I quoted what she said confirming she *did* call it that. Note: “some form of psychic vampire”. It’s comparable to saying a Siamese is a “form of cat” – it’s still a cat”. [Drones on Anthony Hogg]
“As established, your missus *did* say you believed a psychic vampire roamed Highgate Cemetery.” [Anthony Hogg yet again]
She said that I believed that, not that she did or does. (She doesn’t). The key words you’re avoiding here is that she though I believed that. But I have already explained to you that she was wrong there and that she only made reference to some sort of ‘psychic vampire’ because it was yourself who was spreading this term all over the Internet. (That’s why she added ‘some form of psychic vampire’ as she was unclear about what you meant). So you have already had your answer, and so the question is, why are you trying to prolong a question which I have already clearly answered? You do this all the time Anthony. You keep prolonging a particular question if an answer doesn’t suit you trying to get the answer YOU want. Well it doesn’t work that way Anthony. All you succeed in doing is trying to turn innocuous words into some full scale argument, out of nothing! Most kids grew out of this in kindergarten school!
So please considered that answered, and lets not have further meaningless repetition.
You have already been answered very clearly about Redmond’s film, sp please no further repetition there either.
And finally this . . .
“And in that spirit, I’m *still* waiting for you to state what my “preconceived theories” are…” [Anthony Hogg].
You’ll have a long wait Anthony, because only you can do that!
David Farrant, President, BPOS.
David,
I didn’t say Della believed in psychic vampires. I said that she utilised the same term I do, i.e. psychic vampire, to describe your “entity”.
You question whether Della said it, saying, if she did, she was wrong. There’s no ifs about it. I already quoted what she said. Page iii. “Out of the Shadows”. Your autobiography. Which you published.
Now you’re trying to say she used the term in reference to what I said. But that’s not what she says in the text. I’ll give you a larger excerpt. One again, page iii:
“Manchester continues to protest that he did dispatch a real life vampire. Farrant denies their existence and asserts that the creature was a form of psychic vampire.”
I am not Farrant. She’s referring to you. Not something I said.
“You’ll have a long wait Anthony, because only you can do that!”
It’s ok, David. You can say you’d rather not answer what my supposed “preconceived theories” are – because you don’t actually know what you’re talking about.
“It’s ok, David. You can say you’d rather not answer what my supposed “preconceived theories” are – because you don’t actually know what you’re talking about.”
To be honest, I’m not in the least bit interested in your ‘preconceived theories’ about ‘psychic vampires’ or the Higate ‘vampire’ case. You have already been showing people yourself, and there is no need for me to interfere!
David Farrant
Reply
Translation: you can’t say what my supposed “preconceived theories” are. Ok, David.
In the meantime, thanks for not disputing the “what Della said” issue further. It’s been clarified for you.
I know its been clarified. Della clarified the whole issue in her 15-page introduction to my book.
David Farrant
It has been clarified in the sense that she referred to your entity as a psychic vampire, yes.
What IS interesting here Anthony, is that out of the several thousand words in Della’s introduction, and her relevations about the case you only selected just two words – “psychic vampire” – to try and argue about. Why is this when some of the other things she discloses about the case are of far more relevance (the police corruption, for example). I just fail to see how you can refer to yourself as a serious researcher, when you keep ignoring the much larger issues of the Highgate ‘vampire’ case. I can only conclude this is because of your obsession with ‘psychic vampires’ which are not in the least bit relevant to the Highgate case.
David Farrant, BPOS
Yes, because I was using those words in context. You disputed she used them, I proved she did. All I had to do was quote her two sentence passage. From your autobiography. Which you published.
I didn’t discuss the other stuff because that was not the context of the conversation. I hope that allays your confusion.
No Anthony,
I did not dispute she used them. What I disputed was her MEANING which you took completely out of context and tried to attribute to myself. That’s the essential difference which you don’t seem able to grasp. As I told you, I don’t believe in psychic dragons – or vampires.
David Farrant
David,
If you have a problem with her interpretation of your entity, take it up with her. Here’s the quote for you, again: “Manchester continues to protest that he did dispatch a real life vampire. Farrant denies their existence and asserts that the creature was a form of psychic vampire.” (p. iii). If that’s not enough for you, I’ll quote more from the surrounding text. Your call.
I accept that you don’t like *using* the term “psychic vampire” – probably because it has “vampire” in it (however, you’re more than happy to use “vampire” when there’s publicity or money to be made from it) and to distinguish your vampire from Manchester’s (after spending so much time ridiculing it at the expense of your own unscientific beliefs), but you allegedly encountered a being that saps on psychic energy.
You’ve also described it as “vampire-like” and even used the term, “vampire” – for instance, in your 1975 article, “Invoking the Vampire”. Here’s what you said vampires are in your interview with Andrew Gough:
“Well, what is interesting is that they are said to visit people in their sleep, and the symptoms exhibited by these people – these victims, as it were – are invariably the same as those of vampire victims. People wake up for no apparent reason and are paralysed, and often report a pressure, as if someone is kneeling on their chest. I had a German girl visit me in 2001, and she was in quite a state. She had visitations at night and, like many victims, appeared to lose her appetite and, in this instance, the girl was anaemic and required iron pills from a doctor. Still others develop an aversion to bright lights and start sleepwalking; all characteristics of vampire victims. Furthermore, a lot of these people actually report a sexual element to the visitation. Sexual communication between the visiting entity and the person is very common.
“You also put these “entities” in context with the incubus/succubus legend in context with the origin of vampire beliefs.”
What you’re partly describing there is sleep paralysis, but that’s by the by. You’re talking about a being that saps energy from its prey. An “entity”. Entities that *you* believe exist. But what you’re describing is a psychic vampire. And a “form of psychic vampire” is still a psychic vampire.
So, you can keep playing this semantic game, David, but until you come up with a better name for what you think this “entity” was – or your belief in “vampire-like entities” – then a psychic vampire is the best description we have.
And trust me, David – I’m letting you off easy, because your subsequent comments in that article – and elsewhere – about Bram Stoker, are virtually pure bollocks.
Wrong again Anthony. As I told you yesterday, my article on the incubus and succubus involved a completely different case. I HAVE said frequently that stories of vampires are probably based on cases of incubus and succubus nightly visitations – even to the extent of influencing Bram Stoker when he wrote his fictional novel Dracula – but it was not the other way around. Vampires do not exist and silly vampire stories (including the one told by Bram Stoker) were almost certainly based on the incubus and succubus who reported existence dates back for centuries.
You are the one who is trying to ‘play with words’ here, Anthony, and this is so childish as most people can clearly understand my meaning – except yourself, that is, who tends to dismiss plain English in favour of your own warped theories on ‘psychic vampires’.
So for that reason alone, I suggest we drop the topic of ‘psychic vampires’ as well as Redmond’s film, unless anyone else sensible here wants to ask me any questions. I am not arguing with you here, Anthony; it is like entertaining some juvenile delinquent.
And can I suggest that you mind your language here. After all this is a public Forum!
David Farrant, BPOS.
You’re disputing a belief in psychic vampirism. The incubus examples (again, in context with your commentary on the vampire belief) shows you *do* believe in them. I made an offer for you to apply another term – you clearly can’t, because it fits the psychic vampire mould too well.
To say Bram Stoker was influenced by them ignores not only his research into vampirism (check out Elizabeth Miller’s “Dracula: Sense & Nonsense”), but the literary tradition before him. As well as vampire lore. Making such statements, David, requires a little something called “research” – which you clearly haven’t done.
I’m not playing with words, David. I’ve made the definition very clear. I’ve pointed out where it’s been mentioned in your own book, given examples of where you’ve used it, etc. You can say you don’t believe in them till you’re blue in the face: but that doesn’t undermine the fact that what you’ve described, including your own terminology, matches what a psychic vampire is. So, no, I’m not wrong. And my “theories” aren’t “warped”.
If you wish to continue saying I’m “wrong” about it, that’s fine. But I’m allowed my rebuttals.
But let’s keep it simple, for your sake. Do you believe in entities that drain people of their energy or “life force”, David?
“If you wish to continue saying I’m “wrong” about it, that’s fine. But I’m allowed my rebuttals”. [Anthony Hogg]
GOODBYE ANTHONY!!!
David Farrant, President, BPOS
That’s a pretty weasely out, David. I guess it means you should be more careful of what you accuse others of, eh?
So I guess we’ll leave it as a “yes”, you do.
I said GOODBYE Anthony. There is nothing further to discuss!
David Farrant, President, BPOS
Apart from your psychic vampires, of course.
Goodbye Anthony
David Farrant, President, BPOS
Oh, you’re leaving? Cool. In the meantime, to reiterate:
– Despite David’s instance that he never called the Highgate Vampire a vampire, he did.
– Despite his instance that he doesn’t believe in psychic vampires, nor did his de facto refer to them in that way – he does and so does she.
– Despite palming off blame for the popularisation of the vampire theory and its association with himself to Manchester, David is also responsible for the association and banks off it, himself.
– Despite acknowledging that the theory was partly responsible for increased vandalism in the cemetery, he feels no sense of responsibility for it, nor any real intent to offer donations or volunteer work to the cemetery.
– Despite insisting I have “preconceived theories” about the case, suggesting I have some sort of bias on reporting what happened there – he is unable to come up with a single example.
– But most importantly, confronting him with these facts, David repeatedly tries to worm his way out of it, shift goal posts (by deferring to a topic that wasn’t even raised, then questioning why it wasn’t answered).
That about sums up his contributions here. And yet, he’s now asking for people to ask him “legit questions”? Odd.
Oh, and last but not least – the Bram Stoker connection.
All though he hasn’t made it clear, I’ll elaborate on his suggestions here. David thinks Bram Stoker must’ve been influenced by the “entities” David’s been alluding to (psychic vampires) because Stoker’s 1897 novel, “Dracula” is partly set in Highgate Cemetery and features a “vampiric entity” haunting the cemetery, i.e. vampire Lucy Westenra. That is David’s partial “evidence” for the claim that Highgate Cemetery has been haunted by his “entity” since the Victorian era.
Two problems there (apart from the most glaring one, being that “Dracula” was a novel). Firstly, Stoker does not refer to Lucy’s burial place as being in Highgate Cemetery. Even though it’s the popular contention (making David’s connection understandable), the description of the cemetery does not match, as Elizabeth Miller elaborates in “Dracula: Sense & Nonsense”.
The second sticking point, is that there’s no evidence the cemetery was haunted by the type of being David alludes to. Not evidence of its supernatural *existence*, per se, but no contemporary accounts establishing such a story in the first place – despite the fact that David has been making the claim since 1975. At least.
When I questioned David about his source for the Victorian era claim, I was given a total runaround. Instead of providing a direct answer (take note, Charles!), he went on two question my belief in ghosts, copy-pasted two extracts that referred to something else entirely (which were taken from books available online – yet he hadn’t named them; made amusing by the fact that he criticises “internet research”) and later being told that the sources would appear… in another book he’s writing. Charles, you may wonder why I’m a bit of a pitbull with David – it’s because I’m up against that kind of evasiveness.
Interestingly, Manchester also makes a connection between the Highgate Vampire and “Dracula” (admittedly a lot more overt than David’s allusions), but he at least has the sense not to attribute claims to Stoker, with no other evidence apart from a novel and blissful ignorance of the research and sources Stoker consulted for his book. Of course, Manchester *didn’t* have the sense not to make his book, “The Highgate Vampire”, such an obvious rip-off of the novel, but that’s another matter…
In the meantime, it seems clear David doesn’t think “psychic investigators” really need to do much in the way of research. And that has been my points of contention. Yes, my approach may be slightly “aggressive”, but when you’re up against this kind of “bulldust” – much like Jeremy Paxman (thank you, Red, for introducing me to that chap, figuratively speaking), it seems the only route to take.
Thanks Anthony. You have now shown us all your true colours. All points which I could have answered in the first place, had you put your point of view honestly and directly. So at last everyone knows where you stand in your conceptions of the Highgate case – and myself. No need for me to say anymore!
Goodbye Anthony,
David Farrant, President, BPOS.
“(take note, Charles!)…”
No thanks, Tony. But I appreciate you making it clear exactly why you’ve earned the reputation of a hyperargumentative nut job troll obsessed with David Farrant.
David,
Thank you for understanding my points – and not trying to undermine them with false accusations this time around. Good to see you don’t disagree with what I’ve said, either. 🙂
Charles,
With who have I earned this reputation? Apart from yourself, of course. In the meantime, I don’t exactly see you disagreeing with anything I raised in those posts, so… what’s your point, while we’re at it?
Can you just show us, Anthony, one instance in my ‘closing’ comments above where I have agreed with one thing you have said? I left your views ‘unchallenged’ simply because it must be obvious to most readers here that I view your comments as a load of irrelevant nonsense. I hoped I had already made it clear, as well, that I do not wish to continue to indulge in your argumentative – because that’s all they are – accusations. The same accusations which you have been trolling the internet and putting to me for around ten years – and receiving the same answers to. Hence the reason I kept telling you ‘Goodbye’. I did not reply to your last series of parrotted accusations for two reasons. One – to let you have the last word which is the only way to terminate any dialogue with you, but more importantly Two – so that people could make up their own minds. So can we leave it to the readers here, please Anthony? I think they have far more intelligence than you give them credit for.
I do not wish to discuss your ridiculous ‘vampire’ accusations and hair-splitting any further. So please stop addressing myself with all this nonsense.
Goodbye Anthony; and I hope this time that you get the message.
David Farrant, President, British Psychic and Occult Society.
David,
Take note of what I said: “Good to see you don’t disagree with what I’ve said, either.” And you didn’t. Which is great.
There’s nothing “irrelevant” about them. I boiled down the key points; the points of contention. They relate directly to what we’ve been discussing. You commended me for being more direct with them. Which I already had been, but that’s by the by…
My comments were made to correct falsities you’d been printing here, for instance, saying you never referred to the being as a vampire – which you have. It’s totally relevant. If it wasn’t, you wouldn’t be wasting so much space arguing about something that can’t be argued with. I mean, how long can you go on denying stuff you’ve actually said? It’s getting beyond a joke. Talk about revisionism!
I’ve got no issue with people making up their own minds. I encourage it, if anything. In that spirit, I’m more than welcome to make my own contributions. Indeed, if you scroll up to the very first comment on this article – you’ll see that I was the second one to post here – long before you arrived on the scene and starting arguing with sockpuppets.
And I certainly acknowledge the intelligence of other readers – which is why I’d already made the same reference, which you’ve gone and parrotted. It’s also why I find it risible: what you’re accusing me of is what *you* actually do, i.e. misrepresent the issue(s).
If you can’t properly dispute what I’ve said, why bother going out of your way to undermine it? All I have to do is quote you. It’s that simple. I can provide sources and further context. So what are you going to bring to the table, apart from more hollow accusations? I hope it’s something more useful next time ’round.
David, re: “All points which I could have answered in the first place, had you put your point of view honestly and directly” – I had already been doing that. I can’t be blamed for the way you warped them, nor your goal post-shifting, or inability to acknowledge false accusations you made. Please stop trying to palm such attributes to other people. And ease up on the kneejerk dismissals of my comments. Cheers.
“If you can’t properly dispute what I’ve said, why bother going out of your way to undermine it?” [Anthony Hogg].
Because I have no intention of disputing what you say here about the Highgate ‘vampire’ case or your opinions of ‘psychic vampires’ any further, Anthony. I really hoped I had made that clear. I am simply not interested.
So once again, Goodbye, Anthony,
David Farrant, President, BPOS.
So you deliberately undermine what I say here… because you don’t intend to dispute what I say, even those same issues address the false information you’ve been posting here? Thanks for clarifying, David. It makes a lot more sense and proves what I’ve been saying all along.
Well say it to somebody else, Anthony, not Della or myself.
Goodbye Anthony,
David Farrant, President, BPOS
If you’re referring to my posts, and referring to something I’ve said to you, who else am I supposed to address it to, David? Think about it…
Just try not addressing me at all. I am frankly not interested in your amateurish questions and self-righteous opinions about about ‘vampires’ and their ilk. Answering your repetitious questions is an insult to anyone’s intelligence. If you explain to a young child there is no such person as Santa Claus, 9 out of 10 times they will believe you. But there is always the odd one who still wants to believe and won’t let go of the belief. You are such a one!
David Farrant, BPOS.
You’re obviously interested, David, or you wouldn’t keep responding to my posts.
There’s nothing “amateurish” or “self-righteous” about my questions or opinions. Our debate began when I corrected you – while you were using the nom-de-plume “Bold Doug” – in saying that you had never referred to your “entity” as a vampire. You have, and I’ve given examples.
If you can’t handle being corrected on such matters, then avoid misleading readers. I’m clearly not insulting their intelligence – you are, by trying to mislead them to mislead them in the first place. If you can point out where *I’ve* done so, feel free. If you can’t – or refuse to – then there’s no real point to your attacks, is there, except to suppress my corrections.
Just to add further clarity to this matter – I’m not saying you believe in Manchester’s undead variety, even if you represented yourself as someone who did: “The worst I did was to go along with another person’s innane [sic] wild assertions about a ‘blood-sucking vampire”. That’s on your head.
Apart from that, I’m saying, yes, you have used the term “vampire” to describe your entity”, contrary to what you’ve said here. It’s lies like that that I am disputing. Sure, they could’ve had a context. That’s up to you to explain. But to say you *didn’t* say such things, is transparently false.
The great irony is, that your “entity” matches the definition of “psychic vampire” perfectly, i.e. “a person or being who feeds off the “life force” of other living creatures” (Wikipedia). It’s ironic, because you’ve spent years ridiculing vampires, but it’s clear you believe in a vampire type, yourself. That’s not an ignorant, “amateurish” or “self-righteous” conclusion. That’s using a definition and matching it to something you’ve described. Even Della was savvy enough to use it in your own autobiography. She was right when she referred to it as “a form of psychic vampire” – because it is.
I get your schizoid approach to using the term, though – on one hand, you shun it (due to press associations you partially encouraged); and on the other, using it to publicise yourself and your work (“point of reference”) – which means it all boils down to cherrypicking. But when you assert something on here that’s transparently wrong, i.e. that you’ve *never* used the term, then suggest I’m wrong about it – even when I’m directly quoting you – you should really reassess yourself. If you want to talk about insulting reader intelligence, lying to them isn’t the way to appeal to their intellect.
And when you go so far as to warp those lies by inflicting them on others; like suggesting I must be the one who believes in vampires – even though I’ve explicitly explained that I don’t and why – because I own a bunch of books on them, then you should also really focus on the logic you’re using here, especially as you’re the President of the Highgate Vampire Society. Instead of using weak, self-undermining tactics like that, try being more personable and engaging. But most of all, be honest when dealing with stuff you’ve said and done. Cheers.
“Our debate began when I corrected you – while you were using the nom-de-plume “Bold Doug” – in saying that you had never referred to your “entity” as a vampire. You have, and I’ve given examples”. {Anthony Hogg, yet again ‘parrotting’ his nonsense]
I was not using any nom-de-plume, Anthony. This is just yet another occasion when you have got things badly wrong. Doug is a resident of Highgate Village, and has been for some decades, and was visiting me a week or two ago with his girlfriend, Gareth and another friend. I was showing Gareth all your nonsense, as he does not have a computer and for some reason he finds your prattlings amusing (as does Kenny Frewin for that matter). He (Gareth) put a reply up and signed it under his own name – which he often does when he has cause to do so. Previously Doug said that he would like to comment, which he did. He didn’t log out meaning that I inadvertently posted using his account.
So yet another erroneous accusation there, Anthony, stated authoritatively as ‘fact’ by yourself in an attempt to propagate an intellectual environment where your opinions – and only yours – should be treated as fact. Your increasing manipulation of language, designed to give the impression that you are merely stating previously *established* facts when you are doing nothing of the sort, is all very transparent. And an insult to the casual AND informed reader’s intelligence. In fact your blatant use of this tactic, rather than gaining you points in thinking circles is increasingly making you look like a desperate despot. We never read the great Anthony Hogg say ‘I think’, ‘in my view’, or in ‘my opinion’. Perhaps your ego has been so inflated by your own sly tactics that you actually now think that if you say something it must be true. Who knows. And frankly, who cares. You can get on the couch with Manchester in that regard, as far I am concerned.
With regard to your accusation that I have been ‘lying to people on here’ – I have not. Please see above.
Like everybody else on here, in the majority of debate you are actually stating opinions unless you have a hotline to God who tells you *for a fact* what other people saw/see/think/thought/said/did or the objective reality of paranormal phenomenon. But speaking of your opinions, it is heartening to learn that you now believe the Highgate entity to be a real supernatural phenomena, which you describe as a psychic vampire. Anthony Hogg – “Even Della was savvy enough to use it in your own autobiography. She was right when she referred to it as “a form of psychic vampire” – because it is.” I am not sure if ‘psychic vampires’ are (in your strange universe) manifestations of the devil. I have never managed to shoe-horn my and others’ genuine experience of the paranormal into restrictive, invented doctrines such as the nonsense you subscribe to. But thanks for clarifying that the Highgate entity *does* exist and is in your professional diagnosis (don’t make me laugh) a ‘psychic vampire’. Perhaps you are now on your way to actually being able to debate the paranormal itself instead of running away from this subject because in reality it bores you, unlike dissecting and defaming people who have experienced it and dare to talk about it. I doubt it though.
Perhaps you ought to find yourself a new Michael Palin, Anthony, as engaging in pointless circular arguments with you is frankly becoming extremely dull. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y
The same arguments, year in year out. You may have early onset Alzheimers, and find having the same conversation over and over again freshly stimulating every time. But I do not.
I do appreciate that life without me will be very hard for you, Anthony, but you really need to move on. Perhaps you should start a new blog about unicorns or pink elephants or something equally nonsensical, as this vampire / Highgate business is not doing you any good at all. And I am sure I am not the only person to point this out to you on AND offline. Get a life, Anthony.
Yours most sincerely,
David Farrant
President, BPOS
David, regarding your rationale for posting under “Bold Doug’s” account – thanks for confirming I was right, after you initially denied it. So, no, I wasn’t erroneous – you made the mistake there (read what you wrote after I called you out on it).
Funny that you mention Kenny, though – because he was one of the several respondents to your initial letter to the Ham & High. One of several respondents you knew, funnily enough, none of whom disclosed a prior connection… Sounds kinda like a Veronica Jervis-style set-up.
You have been lying to people here (including your refutation for using Bold Doug’s account, after initially denying it). Another example, already mentioned, is not using the term “vampire” to describe your entity – which you have.
As to your comments about my supernatural views – that’s a classic example of you warping what I say. I didn’t say I believed it was a psychic entity. I’m saying the description you’ve given matches the definition of one.
And, by extension, shows you clearly believe in them, yourself. As to “genuine” encounters, well, that’s up for debate. 😉
Oh, and as to this: “Perhaps you should start a new blog about unicorns or pink elephants or something equally nonsensical, as this vampire / Highgate business is not doing you any good at all.” Please, David, tell us more about your upcoming talk on the Highgate Vampire… 🙂
Anthony. I am shutting you off now. This really is my last reply to you. And I fully expect you to scream and cry like a child who’s lost his toy. You will claim victory, hurl personal insults and make false accusations, and post increasingly outrageous comments, all in an effort to bait me into answering you again. But I will not. I am taking away the thing you want and need most: me. With no more David Farrant, your world may crumble, and I’m not sure how you’ll cope with that. Like an addict going “Cold Turkey” you may well go completely mad without your argument “fix”. I honestly don’t care. Goodbye Anthony!
David Farrant, President, President, BPOS
I’ll be right. But thanks for your concern. 🙂
Oh, and as to “baiting” you – damn, David: you can’t even take responsibility for your own choice to (repeatedly) comment here! Grow up, will ya! 😀
Anyway, to get back to the real subject matter, people here might be interested in this independent link to a separate Blog. It covers the subject of Mr Manchester’s role in his self-created role as a ‘bishop’ in “The Old Catholic Church” (the genuine Old Catholic Church based in Utreich, Holland, totally deny this claim, as a matter of record) and the claims of independent individuals to be a part of their official Church.
The link is :
http://hearthofmopsus.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/beyond-fringe.html
Happy reading everyone,
David Farrant.
And you can also read further detials here on The Highgate Cemetery Vampire Appreciation Society, to bring you fully up to date.
Link : https://www.facebook.com/groups/thcvas/
My Blog is also included in the given links, in which I also give a summary of the situation.
Have fun anyway, and happy reading!
David Farrant.
“Anyway, to get back to the real subject matter”…
*points to title of the article: “Wednesday Picture: Highgate Cemetery – and the Tale of the Highgate Vampire”*
It’s not about Manchester’s role as a bishop or promoting that group, David. That’s an obvious deflection from your own claims.
Your promoting is made even more amusing by one of your most recent comments: “Perhaps you should start a new blog about unicorns or pink elephants or something equally nonsensical, as this vampire / Highgate business is not doing you any good at all”… And here you are, promoting the Highgate Cemetery Vampire Appreciation Society.
You really can’t let it go, can you.
But good on you for sharing that blog link, David. Because it has this to say about you and Manchester:
“… Bishop Sean Manchester. Like Mar Seraphim, Sean Manchester is also Archbishop of Glastonbury (there’s a Roman Catholic one, too, it’s a crowded place). You may have heard it said that most of the Internet consists of pornography or cat photographs. A good part of the rest of it is phantom blogs and websites set up by Sean Manchester and David Farrant under an assortment of assumed names to slag each other off. I’d never heard of Bp Manchester before reading a fascinating article in the Folklore magazine some years ago about the saga of the Highgate Vampire. That was when Mssrs Manchester and Farrant met and fell out, and they have devoted an impressive amount of the intervening forty years stalking and berating one another in no uncertain terms. It’s all quite entertaining, but you do feel like a good hot shower and rub down after reading any of the fake blogs operated by either gentleman.”
Interesting. 🙂
Comments are closed.