Tuesday 13 August 2013

Beyond the Fringe

Today I feel thoroughly ashamed of myself.

A friend I hadn't heard from for ages sent me an email. After some awful experiences in his parish he's been bought off by his diocese and left the Church of England. He's joined the Celtic Orthodox Church, which I had to admit I'd never heard of. And this, I'm very sorry to say, sparked off one of my periodic fits of wandering around the internet delving into the murky world of fringe churches.

Now a walk around any large town will usually throw up any number of churches, some big, some small, in the Evangelical or Pentecostal ambit. Keeping themselves far more to themselves are fringe churches of a different order. Pick any of the words 'Catholic', 'Old', 'Orthodox', 'British', 'Liberal', 'Celtic' or 'Apostolic', and combine any number of them in any order, and you will, eventually, find a Church operating under that banner. There are dozens of them, usually composed mainly of bishops (if you have your own Church, the last thing you want to bother being is an ordinary layperson, isn't it? Not if you can be a bishop, or even an archbishop, and get to dress up) who are commonly very precise about who consecrated them as bishops and where their line of succession comes from, usually leading back to either the fraudulent Arnold Mathew or the deluded Jules Ferrete, and rather less precise about what they get up to day by day. My friend's Celtic Orthodox Church is actually one of the more respectable, because it does appear actually to have a couple of congregations and some genuine sense of continuity with something which is more than just a list of names of chaps who had hands laid on their heads by other chaps at some point in the past. I was very surprised to learn that the C.O.C. was once at one with the folk who now make up the British Orthodox Church, from whom they were estranged in 1997 when him what is now Mar Seraphim, the Archbishop of Glastonbury, led the majority of the Church into union with the Coptic Orthodox. The B.O.C. is very sensible indeed, and in fact makes a point of being sensible, as if to expunge the corporate memory of their origins in a bunch of Theosophists.

When I am in one of these reprehensible cycles of deluded fascination I almost always find myself straying in particular directions. One these involves hunting for a character who, when I was in Lamford, used to call himself the Abbot-Bishop of Hersham and whose name I can't remember, but who our organist once saw conduct a funeral at Woking Crem., bedecked in the most outrageous ecclesiastical garb which included ermine. He had some connection to the shadowy Order of Port Royal but he seems nowadays to have disappeared.

From there it's a short step to Bishop Jonathan Blake. He is now Presiding Archbishop of the Open Episcopal Church. Fr Jonathan came to public prominence when he married the unfortunate late Jade Goody to her partner, but I remember him (though have never met him) from twenty years ago when I lived in Chatham and he was an Anglican priest over the river Medway in Strood and was in the process of leaving the Church of England (with the bishop of Rochester's fulsome assistance) after being unable to keep his trousers on, an element in his spiritual progress he never talks about much. I remember you only had to mention his name to our Rector, Campbell, to watch him go episcopal purple from the neck up. Well, Fr Jonathan does seem to be very sincere about his ministry and his Church does actually seem to have a few members below the rank of Patriarch. And from Jonathan Blake we segue seamlessly in the direction of ...

... 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. Bp Manchester stands out from the other episcopi vagantes - 'wandering bishops', that's the term for them - in that he is not an ecclesiastical and spiritual liberal, far from it, but prides himself on being more conservative than the Roman Catholics (except that he's married). I came across a very, very long thread on the Fortean Society message boards in which, during the course of several concurrent discussions about ecclesiastical niceties, whether vampires were real, and naturally, how evil David Farrant is, somebody asked a poster called Exorcistate (who was clearly Bp Manchester himself) whether the bishop did normal things like marry or baptise people, and whether he had a congregation. Well, said Exorcistate, His Grace has serious concerns about security and so his ministry has to be exercised with great discretion. You can take that as a No, then. Years ago Sean Manchester was interviewed for Udolpho, the magazine of the Gothic Society, in the course of which he claimed he was the heir of Lord Byron and therefore the legitimate owner of Newstead Abbey. He does seem to be quite intelligent and good-humoured. He is also the only person I have ever seen, bishop or otherwise, wearing a biretta with a suit.

Well, that's my penance done for wasting so much time on this grubby and unedifying world. Back to the grubby and unedifying world of the Church of England.

What amazes me, by the way, is that almost all these Churches seem to have a branch in Bournemouth ...

189 comments:

  1. Fascinating, priceless reports from a strange world. Are Bournemouth and Glastonbury joined by a ley line, one wonders? If not, it's clearly about time they were.

    ReplyDelete
  2. It's odd, isn't it? I'm not sure you can just start up a ley line, though. As far as Bp Manchester is concerned, his outfit (assuming it's more than just him and the cat) is the Holy Grail Apostolic Church, and he sees his consecration on a hilltop in 1991 by a range of other fringe bishops as the restoration of the original Christian Church of the British Isles which was, naturally, based in Glastonbury, Bournemouth not having been invented then.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Incorrect. Bishop Seán Manchester's "outfit" is actually called Ecclesia Apostolica Jesu Christi.

      Link: http://www.holygrail-church.fsnet.co.uk/Ecclesia%20Apostolica%20Sancti%20Graal.htm


      Delete
  3. I can assure readers here, that I have not made any Blogs about Mr Manchester, a self-styled bishop in the Old Catholic Church. On the other hand, Mr Manchester has made at least half a dozen 'hate Blogs' which are designed to attack myself and other members of the British Psychic and Occult Society. He writes all of these personally using a variety of aliases but they are all invariably written under his own hand.
    It is true I have my own personal Blog (which has been ineffect since July 2007) but Mr Manchester is not discussed in this; rather just my own Talks and other public appearances, and the work of my Society (BPOS).
    Nobody has to take my word for it. Anybody can go and read it for themselves please do! The link is:

    http://davidfarrant.org/TheHumanTouch/

    Then can anybody please tell me (or show me) where I have mentioned Mr Manchester?

    Please do quote me here, if you are unable to take my word for it. You won't be able to!

    David Farrant, President, BPOS

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hello Mr Farrant. I have no intention of wading into the argument as the point of mentioning Sean Manchester was in connection with fringe church groups, rather than the Highgate business, but I will certainly concede that he does seem very assiduous in monitoring his online presence, and of the two of you I would much more have expected him to turn up here than yourself. Perhaps now you have he may also, whether in person or via some pseudonym.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Yes Jamie [Farrant], he'll pester this poor man all over the Internet, writing malicious comments galore and swearing blind that he is part of 'Farrant's Evil Cabal'." - Patsy Langley

      https://www.facebook.com/groups/awampyrwalks/permalink/10153126339050494/?comment_id=10153126971175494&offset=0&total_comments=6

      Please let us know, "Weeping Cross," if anything remotely like what is being alleged by Patricia Langley, a close friend of David Farrant, occurs. And when it doesn't, as it won't, your confirmation that this is yet more libel from the Farrant camp would, of course, be appreciated.

      Delete
  5. Hello to yourself, Weeping Cross. No, I had no intention of Introducing the silly Highgate 'vampire' business on here. But I have also had a relevant interest in the workings of psuedo occult cults and religious sects for some time, which is why I thought to comment here. I have mentioned the observations you made about some of these on my latest Blog and put a link back to yours on my latest Blog today so people can reference what I'm referring to and read it for themselves, if they so wish, rather than just having to rely on my own synopsis.

    The link to my Blog is here: http://davidfarrant.org/TheHumanTouch/ (Sorry its not transposed in colour, but its easy enough to type in).

    I think you made an excellent posting in your own Blog here, anyway.

    David Farrant.

    ReplyDelete
  6. You make an issue out of the fact that Bishop Seán Manchester is married whilst overlooking the fact that most of the Apostles were also married, including St Peter on whom Rome places so much importance. Moreover, Roman Catholic clergy, including Archbishops, were also more often than not married until the Roman Church altered its rule in medieval times to prevent offspring inheriting property and land the Church wanted for itself.

    Bishop Seán Manchester was not "consecrated on a hilltop," as you erroneously claim. He was legally and canonically episcopally consecrated by three Catholic Bishops (who imparted to him an apostolic succession which is a principal determining factor of what makes someone a legitimate Bishop) in a Victorian neo-gothic church in South Hertfordshire, England, on 4 October 1991. There was a substantial congregation who attended the concelebration of Mass led by Bishop Seán Manchester immediately following his elevation to the episcopate.

    Any insinuation that Bishop Seán Manchester is anything other than a bona fide Bishop is not to be entertained with any degree of seriousness. He has had lesser slurs on his episcopal standing put to the test with an outcome totally in his favour.

    For example, when a complaint was made to the Broadcasting Standards Commission:

    "The Commission notes that the intention of 101.4 Angel FM had been to clarify Bishop Manchester’s position and that they had not intended to suggest that he was not a real bishop. The Commission further notes that the announcement was prepared only during the live transmission [of an interview recorded some weeks earlier] and the broadcaster’s admission that 'confusion' as to his status could have been avoided had wider research been conducted. In the Commission’s view, the back announcement was unfair in that it did not reflect Bishop Manchester’s status as a properly consecrated bishop of the Old Catholic Church, unjustifiably raising doubts in listeners’ minds as to his standing. In this, the Commission finds unfairness to Bishop Manchester."

    Signed 1 October 2002

    Ms Maggie Redfern

    Ms Kath Worral

    The Right Rev’d Richard Holloway [a senior Anglican Bishop]

    http://www.holygrail-church.fsnet.co.uk/BSC.htm

    http://www.holygrail-church.fsnet.co.uk/Apostolic%20Succession%20(Old%20Catholic).htm

    ReplyDelete
  7. In deference to Mr. Farrant, I've seen no evidence of him operating "fake blogs" to attack Manchester. Instead, he has publications dedicated to it, namely, Man, Myth and Manchester and The Seangate Tapes. And, of course, a sizeable accumulation of online commentary on him.

    In terms of Manchester's coverage of Farrant, you'll be amused to know, Mr. Cross, that a lot of this anti-Farrant material is actually hosted on Manchester's Holy Grail Church website. I guess all that stuff about "turning the other cheek", "forgiveness", et. al. went out the church window.

    I should also point out that the history of Manchester's church has been plagiarised from elsewhere. Here's my coverage of it: http://dawwih.blogspot.com.au/2010/02/is-his-title-valid.html

    Manchester, himself, is also a flagrant plagiarist. Apart from sermons and encyclopedia entries, he's also pilfered material from the British National Party blog. See: http://dawwih.blogspot.com.au/search/label/Plagiarism

    Regarding Manchester's ordination, I don't dispute the reality of that event, as Mr. Farrant might, however, it's important to note that Manchester made sure his self-founded church was "autocephalous", essentially barring any authority from holding him accountable for behaviour that does not befit his title (the use of aliases to harass and malign people would be an obvious example). And it certainly came in handy when he was laicised by one of the bishops who consecrated him, Illtyd Thomas, for Manchester not disclosing his prior involvement in the occult. Something he still tries to whitewash to this day.

    Last, but not least, what may seem like relatively mild eccentricity on the surface, belies a darker side to Manchester's personality. He has a Nazi room. See: http://kevchesham.blogspot.com.au/p/kevin-chesham-autobiography-first.html

    ReplyDelete
  8. Oh, and a headsup, Mr. Cross. Regarding the picture you've posted of Manchester, don't be surprised if a DMCA notice comes your way soon. Manchester likes issuing those against people who criticise him. But it's perfectly fine for him to steal other people's material, of course.

    ReplyDelete
  9. The history regarding what actually happened back then are as follows:

    Illtyd Thomas claimed to have laicised Bishop Seán Manchester after Illtyd Thomas had already been excommunicated himself. Laicisation is not the same as excommunication, despite some people confusing the two. Roman Catholic priests sometimes request to be laicised when they want to marry, but nobody invites excommunication upon themselves.

    At no time did Illtyd Thomas claim to have excommunicated Bishop Manchester.

    Interested parties who wish to receive documentary evidence held against Illtyd Thomas should contact Bishop Seán Manchester.

    In the meantime, the following facts, supported by witness testimony, are offered to clear up any amibiguity or uncertainty which may exist over this totally spurious laicisation allegation:

    —— When Bishop Seán Manchester and others in his church who accompanied him first made contact with Illtyd Thomas in early 1990, they did so as an existing church which Bishop Seán Manchester led.

    —— At no time during Bishop Seán Manchester's period of preparation for diaconation, ordination to the priesthood and episcopal consecration was he under an Oath of Canonical Obedience to Illtyd Thomas.

    —— At no time has Bishop Seán Manchester ever signed anything resembling an Instrument of Canonical Obedience to Illtyd Thomas. He has always maintained his independence.

    —— It was always understood during Bishop Seán Manchester's preparation for Holy Orders that he came to Illtyd Thomas and two other bishops as an independent church and, therefore, remained autocephalous before, during and after the threefold ordinations that transmitted lines of apostolic succession, which was the sole object of the exercise.

    —— Three bishops took part in the episcopal consecration of Bishop Manchester in October 1991, including Bishop Michael Weston of Ealing, London, and Bishop James Henry Vermeulen of the Netherlands.

    It was uncanonical for Illtyd Thomas or anyone else to lay claim to possess power to “laicise” Bishop Seán Manchester. Illtyd Thomas claimed this after falling under the influence of a convicted felon and pseudo-occultist by the name of David Farrant in early 2007. Such allegations instantly rendered the claimant suspect as any action of this kind would obviously be regarded uncanonical and without meaning by other church jursidictions. David Farrant has been waging a malicious vendetta against Christians in general and Bishop Seán Manchester in particular for a great many years. Farrant has criminal convictions for malicious vandalism in a cemetery, indecency in a churchyard, tomb desecration by the use of black magic, threatening witnesses in his colleague's sex case with voodoo "death dolls" transfixed with pins (Farrant's colleague was later found guilty of sexual assault on a boy), illegal possession of a firearm, and theft from a hospital. Farrant was sentenced to a term of four years and eight months imprisonment at London’s Old Bailey in June 1974. He has shown no remorse since his release and has exponentially worsened with time, attempting to capitalise on his notoriety.

    ReplyDelete
  10. A member of the Ecclesiastical Law Society brought to Bishop Manchester's attention documentary evidence that Illtyd Thomas had a criminal conviction for theft, had blessed homosexual "unions" and had wittingly "ordained" sexual perverts. Illtyd Thomas also cultivated a close association with the one of the most notorious paedophiles in criminal history in the UK - Roger Gleaves - who "ordained" him sub conditione (Bishop Manchester now possesses copies of the "Instruments") despite Illtyd Thomas always having strenuously denied this allegation made against him. Illtyd Thomas was also known to have had associations with various other paedophiles, many of whom are now deceased, as now is Illtyd Thomas himself. It has been known for a long time that Illtyd Thomas has had innumerable occult connections - including Masons, Theosophists and sundry occultists – some of whom he illicitly attempted to ordain. David Farrant, an infamous self-publicist who has employed phoney witchcraft and pseudo-occultism to further his attention-seeking, befriended Illtyd Thomas in early 2007, having been an invited guest to Illtyd Thomas' Muswell Hill home in north London. Farrant resides less than a mile from Illtyd Thomas' residence in a top floor room he has occupied since his parole release from prison.

    Since his collusion with Farrant in early 2007, Illtyd Thomas has been the subject of considerable discussion and concern by innumerable church jurisdictions in the UK. It had already been decided to excommunicate Illtyd Thomas upon discovery in December 2006 that he was still alive. He had been investigated thoroughly with due consideration since documentary evidence was received in 2002.

    Hence, at thirteen hundred hours, ie 1.00 pm (GMT), on the Feast of St David 2007, the former bishop of the autocephalous jurisdiction known as the "Celtic Catholic Church" was duly excommunicated on the grounds of violating the sacred species of his office, by ordaining and consecrating sexually active homosexuals, paedophiles, occultists and criminals; being guilty of heresy by accepting sexually active homosexual, paedophile and occultic clergy, and colluding with a malefic individual who is a pseudo-occultist, ie David Farrant, to do harm to the ministry, church and person of another autocephalous jurisdiction overseen by Bishop Seán Manchester.

    The excommunication was officiated and led by Bishop Seán Manchester using the traditional formula in the Rituali Romanum.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I said "laicised". Your commentary on excommunication is moot. Amusingly enough, I see - through simple Googling, - that you've copy-pasted your "reply", too. The plagiarism is strong with this one.

    ReplyDelete
  12. The source of "Friends of Bishop Seán Manchester"'s plagiarism: http://www.leavesthatwither.co.uk/forteanradio/more-fortean-radio-1-the-kirklees-vampire/#comment-899132394

    ReplyDelete
  13. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Thank you for your rather insighful article Weeping Cross. I never realsed that many of these self appointed clergy lived in Bournemouth! Just what is its appeal for all these men I wonder? Btw, both you and your readers might be interested to know that your article is being hotly discussed and debated on my Facebook group forum: The Highgate Cemetery Vampire Appreciation Society; which can be found via the following link:

    https://www.facebook.com/groups/thcvas/

    It is also being publicised on the forum's fan page:

    https://www.facebook.com/thcvas

    ReplyDelete
  15. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Bishop Seán Manchester was not "self-appointed."

    How can he be "self-appointed" when he was legally and canonically consecrated by three Catholic Bishops (who imparted to him an apostolic succession which is a principal determining factor of what makes someone a legitimate Bishop) in a Victorian neo-gothic church in South Hertfordshire, England.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Yes and let's see how you've characterised one of those bishops:

    "A member of the Ecclesiastical Law Society brought to Bishop Manchester's attention documentary evidence that Illtyd Thomas had a criminal conviction for theft, had blessed homosexual "unions" and had wittingly "ordained" sexual perverts. Illtyd Thomas also cultivated a close association with the one of the most notorious paedophiles in criminal history in the UK - Roger Gleaves - who "ordained" him sub conditione (Bishop Manchester now possesses copies of the "Instruments") despite Illtyd Thomas always having strenuously denied this allegation made against him. Illtyd Thomas was also known to have had associations with various other paedophiles, many of whom are now deceased, as now is Illtyd Thomas himself. It has been known for a long time that Illtyd Thomas has had innumerable occult connections - including Masons, Theosophists and sundry occultists – some of whom he illicitly attempted to ordain."

    Not the best reference, eh?

    You should focus less on Manchester's title (I know he's superkeen on those, as he used to [falsely] claim he was a Lord, too), but more on what he does with the role. Anyone can get ordained, these days. There's free ordinations you can get online. Anyone can found their own church, too. Manchester did.

    He seems he went through the motions just to grab the title. Which is petty and sad. But it means nothing without substance behind it. That Manchester had to resort to plagiarising his church's history says a lot.

    ReplyDelete
  18. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Oh, and since Thomas is deceased, who was this "member of the Ecclesiastical Law Society"? Sounds like a lot of nasty hearsay to me.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Ok, so you were appointed (and subsequently promoted) by a small and unofficial clique of individuals that have in turn conveniently appointed and promoted each other when it was required Sean. But let us not get too bogged down by pedantry here; just give us the evidence that you are indeed running a legit operation.

    Btw, how are things with your church and congregation Sean? You know I would dearly love to attend a service in person but I can't find your listing in the local Yellow Pages. Just why is that I wonder?

    ReplyDelete
  21. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  22. You're talking utter bollocks Sean. Why would the Anglican church-affiliated Ecclesiastical Law Society comcern itself with all the various goings on within a Christian sect? And particularly one which it does not even recognise?

    ReplyDelete
  23. Dum de dum. Still no explanation of the biretta with the suit, that's what bothers me.

    The people I really slandered were the British Orthodox Church, who I described as 'until the 1970s a bunch of Theosophists'. I'd forgotten that the former Archbishop of Glastonbury, Henry Willmott-Newman, made genuine efforts from the 1940s onwards to move his then Church (I forget its name at that point, it was the Old Catholic Church of the British Isles or something like that) in the direction of Christian Orthodoxy. He sought recognition from the Church of England but Archbishop Geoffrey Fisher was stern in his refusal to have anything to do with him. I made my statement without thought and have amended it. I did get some information about that some years ago when I corresponded with the BOC about Fr JE Bazille-Corbin, the Rector of Runwell, who was one of these clandestine bishops.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Still no explanation of the biretta with the suit, that's what bothers me." Weeping Cross [a pseudonym - please note Jamie Farrant]

      If that is what bothers members of the Church of England nowadays they really are missing the bigger picture as their communion literally crumbles right before their eyes under the weight of liberal reform, sending Anglicans hither and thither to Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy and, yes, smaller independent jurisdictions which nevertheless hold fast to what is true, ie sound doctrine as revealed in Holy Scripture and the teachings of Jesus Christ and His Apostles.

      Outside liturgical functions, a black suit and clerical collar is the usual attire for priests and bishops. The use of the cassock is at the discretion of the cleric, as is the wearing of a traditional black or purple, according to whether the wearer is a priest or bishop, biretta.

      Delete
    2. It isn't an important matter, just remarkable. Cairncross's Ritual Notes (I have the 1946 edition) assumes that the biretta will only ever be worn with a cassock. Bp Manchester is the only cleric, of any jurisdiction, I have ever seen wearing it in any other way, although in 'Anglican Papalismn' Michael Yelton does mention Fr Sandys Wason wearing one to play tennis years after being ejected from his living in Cornwall. I wouldn't take Sandys Wason as precedent for anything.

      Delete
    3. And it is true, I do use this very longstanding pseudonym (which arose almost by accident when I joined the London Goth Meetup Group some years ago) as a means of distancing the blog from my parish. However a) it isn't used in order to pretend to be anyone other than I am and b) you can find out who I am pretty easily, should you really want to. I doubt whether most people would be that bothered.

      Delete
    4. I'm surprised the pseudonym is of any concern to someone posting as "Friends of Bishop Seán Manchester" - not the poster's real name, I'm sure.

      Delete
  24. Tell you what, in an attempt to take this in a different direction: I think it's very odd, nay nearly a contradiction in terms, to be a bishop without any significant number of laypeople in one's Church, no matter who laid hands on one at what point (or indeed in what setting). I think it was the great Fr Arthur Couratin, one-time principal of my old theological college, who first came up with the line that the Apostolic Succession was "less a matter of hands on heads than bums on thrones". That is, a bishop makes no sense without a worshipping community around him, and it is in their relationship that the Holy Spirit works. Thinking the bishop alone constitutes a Church is to imagine that the Spirit is some sort of holy electricity that gets channelled down from one chap in a pointy hat to the next. The fact that Christians who've never been anywhere near a bishop still seem able to do miraculous things (most importantly, of course, produce the 'fruits of the Spirit' as outlined in Galatians 5) would suggest not. I would take the view that Arnold Mathew ceased to be a bishop in any meaningful sense when it was clear he had no lay following and the Old Catholic Church renounced him. What view would Bp Manchester take?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And your evidence for saying that Bishop Seán Manchester is "a bishop without any significant number of laypeople in one's Church" is what?

      Reliance on tittle-tattle from those who have an anti-Christian agenda and are especially hostile toward Bishop Seán Manchester?

      Instead of feeding the trolls you have unfortunately attracted onto your blog, why not put your questions directly to Bishop Seán Manchester on his own blog where there will be no distraction from malicious gossipers, rumour-mongers and spreaders of misleading defamation?

      http://therightreverendseanmanchester.blogspot.co.uk/

      Delete
    2. I considered it covered on the Fortean exchange I mentioned above when a questioner did indeed ask Bp Manchester about his everyday ecclesiastical work, with the evasive answer that it had to be done in secret for security reasons. This may, I suppose, be the case, but if so it's impossible to demonstrate one way or the other, short of, I don't know, some photographs of the Bp actually administering some ecclesiastical function (other than at his consecration), mention on the website of any other members of the Holy Grail Apostolic Church below the rank of Bishop, that sort of thing. The sort of thing that other Churches do. It seems a bit rum, for instance, that although the Church's website claims that there are 'priests and deacons living in proximity to their Bp and Primate', I can't find anyone else on the magic internet who claims to be an ordained member of the Church. I did discover an 'Apostolic Catholic Church of the Holy Grail' in Santa Fe, but their contact is an ordained woman, so obviously can't be anything to do with Bp Manchester, presumably.

      It may of course be the case that individuals most in need of the Bp's ministry do find their way to him, in which case he will simply have humbly to put up with the calumnies of knaves in the satisfaction of doing the Lord's work.

      Delete
  25. It's all a game of smoke and mirrors with Sean Manchester Weeping Cross. Just scratch the veneer of this phoney 'traditionalist Catholic' clerical persona, and I can assure something very nasty will come crawling out.

    ReplyDelete
  26. May I just clarify Weeping Cross that you were right in what you were saying......Patrick Manchester (Sean's actually his middle name) grew up on a council estate in Nottingham. ..nothing wrong there except he expects people to believe he hailed from the grounds of Newstead Abbey which he emphatically didn't....His claim to be descended from Lord Byron is total rot as is his claim to run a 'retreat for victims of religious cults' in Bournemouth. Patrick hasn't worked a day in the last 30 odd years least of all in any religious capacity...he has no church, no congregation and hasn't performed a single ceremony in his life apart from occult ones (where he used to dress in mask and robes and refer to himself as the magister) The man is a blatant liar who relies on unfollowed through threats of legal action and base intimidation to silence those who've seen through his transparent web of lies...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. May we just clarify that "chatty.gef" is Jamie Farrant, son of David Farrant, who, up until three years ago when he sought out and found his father, had never heard of Bishop Seán Manchester. I wonder who "educated" him on the subject?

      Jamie Farrant was barely six-years-old when Bishop Seán Manchester entered minor orders just prior to his lay Order being inaugurated in 1973.

      This curious individual is not well disposed towards Christians in general (just check out his blasphemous references to Catholics on Facebook), or Bishop Seán Manchester in particular; yet he has never had any contact with the Bishop and only knows what he has been told by his father who has not communicated with the Bishop for well over a quarter of a century.

      Bishop Seán Manchester's position regarding David Farrant, as stated as recently as two days ago on his blog, is:

      "We should not 'write off' [David Farrant]. I have offered to meet this man privately on innumerable occasions with view to helping him and also putting an end to his exceptional hostility. He has always declined. ... Nobody is beyond redemption, and I would not judge nor rule out the possibility of any person being helped to turn from their own shadow to the Light, but I am obliged to condemn behaviour which is morally reprehensible, degenerate and harmful."

      Source: http://therightreverendseanmanchester.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/national-gnosticism-and-social-darwinism.html

      Delete
  27. I see Mr. Manchester has just reverted to his usual ‘cut and pasted’ rhetoric about myself. It is because of obsessive material such as this that I brought out my books “The Seangate Tapes and “Man, Myth and Manchester” – official publications which can be ordered from Amazon, WH Smith and all reputable bookshops. The purpose of me writing these books? To expose all of Mr. Manchester’s distorted lies about myself which he was posting all over the Internet and elsewhere. These claims are posted all under carefully selected aliases, but invariably all made by Mr. Manchester himself (just as he is personally making them here).

    To the matter of Mr. Manchester being a bona fide bishop, I can tell you quite categorically that he is NOT! Of course, and as Mr. Hogg points out, it is easy to obtain such titles nowadays; you can even order them on the Internet. You pay an appropriate sum of money, and you are posted an ‘official’ Certificate. I am not disputing that Mr. Manchester did not receive a certificate – or certificates – such as this (indeed at his two staged ‘ordinations’ back in 1999 and 2000 he was issued with two such certificates by the late Illytd Thomas, who was later to laicise him and excommunicate him from his own particular branch of the Old Catholic Church) but, quite frankly, they are not worth the paper they are written on regarding genuine religious authenticity.

    They can have value though when used by certain cults and sects to avoid paying otherwise mandatory council tax. By his own admission, Mr. Manchester admits this motivation himself. Just preceding his ‘ordination’ in 1999, in an interview he gave to Michael Megenis of Midweek magazine titled “Highgate Horrors – Killing Vampires in N6”, Manchester confirms that he is recognized ‘in heaven and on earth’ and that once ordained he will no longer be eligible to pay council tax.

    Manchester is pictured on the front cover of this magazine wearing an effeminate frilly shirt,with bleached blond hair and clutching a crucifix. He is again pictured inside adourned in a ‘Dracula-type red-lined cape’, standing in front of a grave and holding a three foot wooden stake. The photographs are credited to Lauren Hicks and the caption to this particular one reads:

    “Sean Manchester, descendent of Lord Byron, stakes out Higagate Cemetery. ‘Twenty years ago I was mocked. But not now”’. [sic].

    He is quoted thus . . . “Fast cars and dreadful holiday destinations don’t interest me. I have a horse, which doesn’t cost much. But because of my spiritual pursuits, I’m treated as a guest, both from above and on earth. It doesn’t bother me if I’m in a humble dwelling or the bar of the Hilton. And after my ordination I won’t be eligible for poll tax [council tax]”.

    Well, that seems to explain it all, n’est pas?

    Thank you for clarifying that Sean!

    David Farrant, President BPOS.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. Regarding the serious allegation that Bishop Seán Manchester was either "laicised" or "excommunicated":

      Illtyd Thomas claimed to have laicised Bishop Seán Manchester after Illtyd Thomas had already been excommunicated himself. Laicisation is not the same as excommunication, despite some people confusing the two. Roman Catholic priests sometimes request to be laicised when they want to marry, but nobody invites excommunication upon themselves.

      At no time did Illtyd Thomas claim to have excommunicated Bishop Manchester.

      In 2002, Bishop Seán Manchester was informed by the Ecclesiastical Law Society of matters previously unknown to him about Illtyd Thomas who had been an independent prelate vaguely known about, but not connected to Bishop Seán Manchester's jurisdiction. If proven, this evidence placed the Muswell Hill prelate under the threat of excommunication and anathematisation. The evidence was substantial and the next period was spent painstakingly investigating all the facts and trying to determine whether the elderly prelate was still alive. In 2006, it was confirmed that Thomas was not deceased and by that time the evidence provided by the Ecclesiastical Law Society satisfied those investigating, Bishop Seán Manchester included, to prepare for a solemn excommunication. Illtyd Thomas was informed of the charges against him should he wish to challenge any of the evidence.

      Illtyd Thomas did not respond to this correspondence, but instead issued a threat of his own which was uncanonical and invalid. This he did through David Farrant who posted Illtyd Thomas’ statement on the internet. In his statement, Thomas, based on Farrant’s misinformation, falsely accused Bishop Seán Manchester of participating in the occult. Further evidence appeared on the internet of collusion between Thomas and Farrant. This evidence included photographs of the prelate with Farrant and others meeting at Farrant’s attic bedsitting room in Muswell Hill Road. Farrant’s then girlfriend, Catherine Fearnley, later confirmed that Illtyd Thomas and his “deacon” Ian Kacrzowski exhibited strong interest in witchcraft and the occult.

      A solemn excommunication and anathematisation was carried out on St David's Day, 1 March 2007, due to Illtyd Thomas’ sexual perversion, association and collusion with notorious pederasts and occultists, acceptance of sodomy and his own homosexual practices (something he had always strenuously denied to Bishop Seán Manchester and others belonging to the latter's Order, but apparently admitted to David Farrant), and attempts to cause injury to the Bishop Seán Manchester's ministry and Church. The excommunication was made known to other denominations, including the Roman Catholic Church at Westminster, and was met with total support from all without exception.

      Source: http://www.holygrail-church.fsnet.co.uk/IlltydThomas.htm

      Delete
    3. "Seán Manchester's ministry and Church."

      What 'ministry's that then Sean.....please explain...and maybe you could provide proof of you performing a ceremony that isn't occult for a change.. that's why you were laicised after all...for your occult practises.......

      Delete
    4. What nonsense Sean! Whether it was you who were excommunicated or Thomas matters jot to the established churches. Why would the official denominations such as the Roman Catholic Church or the Church of England need be informed of the outcome? The Roman Catholic Church in particular does not recognise or legitimise Christian based cults or sects such as yours Sean... PERIOD!

      Do not deign to insult the intelligence of either the blog's author or his readership like you do elsewhere. It is getting very tiresome.

      Delete
  28. Yep..I'm Jamie Farrant...I've never tried to hide behind a user name. Unlike Patrick Manchester who cowers behind at least at least 50 of of them...one of which being 'friends of bishop sean manchester' eh Pat/sean......

    ReplyDelete
  29. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  30. You're still talking utter bollocks Sean. Would you please explain to us why an Anglican church-affiliated organisation such as the Ecclesiastical Law Society would concern itself with a rather elusive Christian sect/cult such as yours, and its warring factions? And particularly one that is not part of the Anglican communion... in any shape or form?

    ReplyDelete
  31. Perhaps I can help with that one as well Redmond. (Please note Manchester has totally ignored the proof I presented of his own comments where he all but admits that the whole farce of his ‘ordinations’ was essentially a ploy to avoid paying council tax. I wonder why?)

    Mr. Manchester claimed to be recognized by the official Old Catholic Church in America and Holland, and to be recognized by the Vatican. All a deliberate lie.

    The Old Catholic Church in Utreich, Holland, which is run by Archbishop Glasemaker (or used to be about 15 years ago) totally denied that he had ever been ordained as a Priest or consecrated as a Bishop in their Church.

    The Old Catholic Church said exactly the same thing (no records, nothing) while the Vatican state that they have never even heard of him!

    To set the record straight; I was in contact with Bishop Illtyd in late 2006/ early 2007. He wrote to myself; visited my studio flat overlooking Highgate Woods and invited me for dinner at his Muswell Hill home on several occasions. It was here I learned that Illytd Thomas had received several letters of complaint of misconduct by Mr. Manchester, mainly from people who Mr. Manchester was libeling on the Internet under the guise of using his given status as a ‘bishop’. Bishop Thomas made some enquires about Manchester’s past and learned that he had not disclosed his past occult involvements, or that he actively supported far-right political parties, such as The British National Party.

    Bishop Thomas wrote to Mr. Manchester twice (he showed me and others his letters) inviting Manchester to his home in order that they could discuss these matters. Manchester made absolutely no reply, so after a period of 28 days he (Illytd Thomas) issued his Laicization Order and told us this meant, in effect, that Manchester had been excommunicated Bishop Thomas requested that I posted this on the Internet from where most of these complaints had originated. I did this (I believe it was sometime in April 2006 – but the exact date is on the Laicization Order) where it was duly seen by Mr. Manchester,

    Manchester’s almost immediate response, was to issue a statement to the effect that Bishop Thomas had already been excommunicated (by himself, naturally!) some weeks earlier in February, on the Feast of St. Stephen. In other words, Mr. Manchester to ‘back date’ the issue to suit his own convenience. This is all totally untrue, as Mr. Manchester does not have the power or authority to excommunicate anybody.

    Following this, Mr. Manchester attempted to make a barrage of ‘Internet slurs’ against Bishop Thomas, including a persistent one that Bishop Thomas was a ‘practicing homosexual’ and so had no authority to be a priest.

    I personally saw no evidence of this, and even had I done, I can’t grasp Mr. Manchester’s perverted logic.

    For the record, Bishop Thomas had been married and had three grown up children. And he was well into his nineties when Manchester was making his vile attacks. I said at the time (publicly) that it was decidedly an unchristian act to harass such an elderly old man in this manner.

    I still think so.

    David Farrant, President, BPOS.


    ReplyDelete
  32. It is interesting to note, in view of the comments about council tax, that there is a certain house, in the Southbourne district of Bournemouth, where, according to the electoral register, no-one has lived since 1993. But, from the outside, the place does look inhabited, even to the extent of having its own satellite dish.
    Gareth J. Medway (posted by David Farrant).

    ReplyDelete
  33. "his claim to run a 'retreat for victims of religious cults' in Bournemouth"

    Very spookily, I hadn't got the Holy Grail Apostolic Church in mind when I mentioned all these fringe churches had establishments in Bournemouth. If Bp Manchester does indeed have an outlet there it is a coincidence ... bordering on the occult.

    I come from Bournemouth.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The name of Bishop Seán Manchester's jurisidiction is not "Holy Grail Apostolic Church." It is Ecclesia Apostolica Jesu Christi.

      Regarding the refuge for cult victims matter, these are Bishop Seán Manchester's own words (posted by him on 1st April 2013):

      We were very occasionally approached by various churches at different times to shelter individuals who might otherwise be at risk. This was owing chiefly to my work investigating such groups and, of course, From Satan To Christ (published in 1988 some time after it was no longer safe for me to operate in that spiritual minefield without the risk of being detected).

      These anecdotes inform why we accepted up until Lent 2002 those who needed our help and gave them a safe haven or sanctuary. The reason we did so is because we were asked, and the rooms were available. It did not happen often, it should be stated, but the moment our whereabouts were compromised it ceased.

      The address of our private retreat in England was generally unknown up until Easter 2002 at which time it was betrayed by someone privy to it. We now know the identity of that person. Unsolicited mail of a vaguely threatening nature began to arrive with a London postmark. It was handed to WPC Suzie Cregan who opened a crime file on our behalf. Alarm bells should have started to ring when an item arrived on Tuesday April 23rd (St George's Day) of that year with insufficient stamps and a single word comprising its message. The word was: "Moving?" The message was sent by a man resident in Muswell Hill who had been convicted in the 1970s of satanic crimes at Highgate Cemetery and sending police witnesses voodoo death dolls in a separate case involving a Satanist friend of his who was later convicted of sexual assault.

      Delete
    2. Bishop Seán Manchester's response in his own words (continued):

      Two of the people we mentioned the possibility of our relocation to were Kevin Chesham and Beverley Mason. They both took an extraordinary interest in our plans, and always made a point of raising it every time we heard from them, or saw them. In the event, we did not relocate but instead established an interest elsewhere whilst still retaining the retreat. Yet for the next couple of years Kevin and Beverley found little else to talk about in our company. When they realised the retreat would remain unsold, however, with nothing disclosed about any other interests, they started to become agitated. This was most apparent when they attended a celebration dinner in my honour in July 2007, which was the last year in which we saw them. We do not permit smoking at the retreat, but on this occasion we were mostly seated in the sun lounge abutting the garden and grotto with the doors wide open. The wife of an old friend who was seated next to the open doors happened to start smoking. Everyone had long since finished eating, but Kevin and Beverley took extreme umbrage, gathered up their bags and jackets, and stormed off in an almighty huff. We would only see them once more. Five months later they appeared on Boxing Day with treachery in their hearts. This I have dealt with elsewhere.

      It was not too long after the the two occasions in 2007 that collusion became apparent between Kevin and Beverley (for whom nothing but kindness and generosity had been shown in the handful of years they had been visiting) and the London based David Farrant who has been my adversary for a great many years.

      There are no short cuts in life. Kevin should have realised, as a long distance runner, that if you cheat you will eventually be found out and disqualified. Whatever the cause of his incredible shift in direction, we either face the Light or our own shadow. The struggle in life is to remain true and stick to the difficult Path ahead whilst avoiding inevitable temptation at every twist and turn. Kevin clearly succumbed to temptation along the way, and, unless he genuinely seeks to make amends and looks to be absolved through contrition, he will remain for ever more with the consequences of his disloyalty, dishonesty and deception. We are at the helm of our own destiny when it comes to "turns and directions." The lesson to be learned is that once truth is sacrificed, as happened with Kevin, all else follows and becomes counterfeit. He alone can strive, if he so desires, to recover what is lost; turning away from his own dark shadow; only he can determine whether he wishes to dwell in perpetual darkness or seek the Light he abandoned.

      We still receive from Kevin neo-Nazi material through the post; some of it overtly satanic and clearly in the Kerry Bolton mould. Every so often something arrives with a Gatwick postmark, indicating that he had asked somebody returning or visiting the United Kingdom to post it for him upon their arrival at Gatwick. The envelopes are addressed to me in Kevin's familiar handwritten capital letters.

      Source: http://kevin-chesham.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/kevin.html

      Delete
    3. I do apologise for mangling the name of Bp Manchester's church although, in my defence I would plead that the website is anything but clear. Its address is 'holygrail-church.fsnet', after all, and there is a point where it talks about the Church being 'reborn on Good Friday on a hill near Glastonbury' which event I didn't at first realise was separate from Bp Manchester's consecration in 1991. Perhaps the webmaster needs to jig it about a bit?

      Delete
  34. A friend of mine has just told me this thread has really cheered her up.

    ReplyDelete
  35. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  36. I see "Friends of Bishop Seán Manchester" is just going to keep copy-pasting items in lieu of a proper response. But from what we gather so far, he has no congregation, no priests operating under him (so to speak). Oh, and a plagiarised church history. Basically a bishop in name only.

    And David - regarding ordinations, you can get free ones, too. The main qualification you need? Being able to fill out a form.

    Manchester's main claim to the bishopric is that three bishops of a non-mainstream church - one of whom "Friends of Bishop Seán Manchester" describes in a very nasty fashion - laid their hands on him. And... that's it. This same bishop also laicised Manchester - but Manchester says he got in first by excommunicating the bugger (yeah right). Never mind that the reason why Manchester got laicised is because he disclosed his prior involvement in the occult: something that continued after he founded his Holy Grail Church in 1973, no less. Speaking of that dodgy church, if Manchester was independent - and still is - why bother getting ordained through the Old Catholic Church at all? Why not just stick to his imaginary church in the first place? If the intent was to have an aura of "legitimacy" with a bloody title, he's not done a good job with it. And, as we've seen, it means sweet bugger-all in the grand scheme of things, whether Manchester's a Lord, a Magister, Britain's No. 1 Psychic (all things he's claimed to be), he must realise that such titles mean diddly squat without substance to back them. Instead, we're dealing with a shell of a man who claims grandiose titles to make up for a lack of personality.

    But what's even more amusing, is that "Friends of Bishop Seán Manchester" - an anonymous sockpuppet - is even bothering at all. He/she (I'll play along) is a complete joke. He/she can't even come up with their own replies, copy-pasting them from other sockpuppets and where that fails, resorting to slagging off Jamie when he raises valid points. Best of all, Manchester is aware of FoBSM's activity (likely because he's writing/copy-pasting it, himself) Oh, and there's that "anti-Christian" chestnut: because apparently, if you criticise Manchester at all, you're anti-Christian. How narcissistic can you get?

    Hell, even that routine betrays his lack of substance. Here's what Manchester's former friend, Kevin Chesham, had to say about Manchester's attitude toward religious vilification:

    "He bragged that he had had ‘many successes’ [shutting down forums], especially when he used the ‘incitement to religious hatred card’ as he laughingly referred to it."

    Source: http://kevchesham.blogspot.com.au/p/kevin-chesham-autobiography-first.html

    That just shows he can't even take his own role seriously. So all the trouble of getting those hands laid on him - hard work, I'm sure - all for nothing. What a waste.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Regarding Kevin Chesham, here are Bishop Seán Manchester's own words (posted by the Bishop on 10th June 2013):

    Kevin Chesham has barely been back in the country a month and the threats have already begun to manifest in the form of two cards received this morning in envelopes written in his barely disguised handwriting (though some slight attempt was made to disguise it, his apparent inability to alter his style is glaringly obvious) that were posted from where he and Beverley Mason are residing in Essex.

    The first card, sent in a pink envelope, carries the legend "While You're in Hospital." The second, sent in a white envelope, is a Sympathy card intended for someone who has lost a loved one. Neither card is signed, but the intention is quite obvious. My wife opened these cards and took them as a direct threat on us both.

    Though he has tried to alter his erstwhile very recognisable handwriting on the two envelopes by writing in an infantile manner with large characters (possibly employing his left hand), you would have no need to be a graphologist to see that individual characters in our address written on the envelopes match exactly those Kevin has employed in his correspondence down the years to various people.

    Regarding Kevin Chesham's so-called autobiographical claims, I stated on 3 March 2012 that when these machinations first began to be revealed by Farrant around Christmas 2010, internet-users were told that Kevin alleged to have been involved in the Highgate Vampire case and possessed a lot of "information" concerning it. Nothing could be further from the truth, of course, as I have never discussed this case with him and, moreover, he has shown no interest whatsoever in it; at least, not in my presence. Kevin would have been barely sixteen when the occurrences at Highgate Cemetery became known to the wider public, and the principal contagion was all but exorcised around the period when he and I first had accidental contact and became acquainted. So that strategy failed before it so much as got off the ground.

    Source: http://kevin-chesham.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/threats.html

    Continued ... // ...

    ReplyDelete
  38. Bishop Seán Manchester's own words on Kevin Chesham (continued):

    Though he obtained my bestselling book about the case, I doubt he ever read it. He certainly never discussed it with me or anyone else known to me. Now he is attempting to exploit it for his own ends. The truth is he knew nothing about the investigation until decades after it was over when he obtained a copy of The Highgate Vampire (among other of my books) in the 1990s. He could not have read it because he took umbrage at Keith Maclean participating in a documentary about the case made by the Discovery Channel (also available on DVD) and couldn't understand why I involved Keith who, of course, received a fee. There was clearly more than an element of jealousy in Kevin's reaction which some believe was the trigger that led to him coming out of the closet and revealing his treacherous true colours at a later date. The fact is that Keith Maclean was instrumental in my investigation into the Highgate happenings at their inception; something Kevin Chesham should have known if he had actually bothered to read my book.

    When it was discovered that Kevin was engaged in treachery and had been acting as a mole for Farrant who promises to publish Kevin's "autobiographical" fantasies from his Muswell Hill bedsitting room, I was obliged to create this rebuttal blog owing to the malice and incitements of hatred against me and mine.

    Kevin Chesham, like Farrant before him, wants his fifteen minutes of infamy. In order to achieve this he has decided to become yet another unconnected person to try and hop on the Highgate Vampire bandwagon.

    Apart from myself and Keith Maclean, whom he met at luncheons my wife and I hosted, Kevin Chesham and his wife Beverley Mason have not had contact with anyone genuinely connected with the investigation of the Highgate Vampire case, and, as can be confirmed by those present on each and every occasion, the case itself was never raised or discussed in their presence. Had it been, he would have been aware of Keith Maclean's part in it and understood why he was involved in the making of the documentary. But he didn't, and Kevin Chesham's own pettiness, anger and envy got the better of him in the end.

    Source: http://kevin-chesham.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/threats.html

    ReplyDelete
  39. I have to say all of this makes Jonathan Blake look like a saint.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Do you really believe that, "Weeping Cross"?

    Are you not an Anglo-Catholic, as has been muted?

    Would a saint make the following pronouncement:

    "I was the first cleric to advertise my willingness to provide gay marriages in the UK in 1994 and subsequently conducted hundreds of gay marriages across the country, including on Richard and Judy's prime time morning TV show on February 14th 2001." - Jonathan Blake

    Homosexuality and Sin: A Summary of Catholic Teaching:

    1. All sexual acts, outside of natural marital relations open to life, are intrinsically evil and always objective mortal sins.

    2. All unnatural sexual acts are intrinsically evil and always objective mortal sins.

    3. All sexual acts between persons of the same gender are intrinsically evil and always objective mortal sins.

    4. Sins are acts involving the intellect (knowing) and the will (choosing). An orientation is not, in and of itself, an act or a sin.

    5. The homosexual orientation itself is intrinsically evil, but is not itself a sin.

    6. Since the homosexual orientation is intrinsically evil, any and all acts, whether sexual or not, by which a human person knowingly chooses to move toward, cooperate with, reinforce, or act upon, a homosexual orientation is itself a sin, either venial or mortal.

    7. All human persons are children of God. No human person is intrinsically evil, even if he or she has an intrinsically evil sexual orientation.

    8. All human persons inherently deserve just and merciful treatment.

    9. The promotion and spread of homosexuality is offensive to God and is gravely harmful to families, the Church, and society in general.

    10. Society has the right and the duty to make laws which discourage sinful acts that cause serious harm to society.

    Pope Francis has affirmed church teaching on homosexuality specifically that homosexual actions are immoral. He opposes same-sex marriage, and unsuccessfully opposed legislation introduced in 2010 to allow same-sex marriage in Argentina, calling it a "real and dire anthropological throwback." In a letter to the monasteries of Buenos Aires, he wrote: "Let's not be naïve, we're not talking about a simple political battle; it is a destructive pretension against the plan of God. We are not talking about a mere bill, but rather a machination of the Father of Lies that seeks to confuse and deceive the children of God." In this context, Pope Francis also opposed adoption by same-sex couples, arguing that it threatened the "identity ... and the survival of the family: father, mother and children." He stated that "children ... are discriminated against in advance depriving them of human growth that God would be given to a father and a mother."

    In 1998, the 13th Lambeth Conference of Anglican bishops passed a resolution stating that homosexual acts are "incompatible with Scripture."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I didn't say I thought Jonathan Blake *was* a saint, only that he looks like one in comparison. Please don't mention his name again or he'll pop up here, too.

      Delete
  41. Thank you for your attempts to educate readers here, Sean, with yet another amalgamation of text lifted from Wikipedia and other people’s blogs.

    But on another, more important matter …

    Kev Chesham has asked me to clarify that he most certainly did NOT send anything through the post to the self styled bishop, Mr. Sean Manchester. Kev has confirmed that he has had no direct contact since he last saw him in 2007 – nor does he want any.

    Mr Manchester made a similar accusation against myself back in late 2001, when he alleged to the Bournemouth police that I had been ‘harassing’ him by sending his unwanted material through the post – which included a crude home-made mechanical device which ejected ‘white powder’ into his face when he opened it. Mr Manchester wrote a statement for the Bournemouth Police to the effect that I had attempted to cause him some physical injury, and I was duly charged with ‘harassment’ – a charge which carried an 8 month maximum penalty of imprisonment. (This case was widely discussed on the Internet at the time – not least by Mr. Manchester – as became known as ‘The Talcum Powder Plot).

    What had happened in reality, was that I had posted complimentary copies of a then current booklet titled “Man, Myth and Manchester” to Mr. Manchester and his wife, Mr. Manchester’s mother-in-law; his then Secretary, Diana Brewester, and a rather ‘backward’ member of Manchester’s tiny clique called ‘Brother Keith’. The booklets were all sent to retract highly libelous statements Mr. Manchester had been widely circulating on the Internet which affected both myself and my Society. These booklets were all addressed in my own handwriting and obvious contained my fingerprints on the envelopes, as I saw no reason to disguise these.

    Yet astonishingly, when Mr. Manchester handed these envelopes to the Bournemouth Police to ‘back up’ his given statement, the booklets had ‘mysteriously disappeared’ and been replaced with other items. One envelope contained two carefully guillotined pages that had been removed from the complete book; another a piece of indigenous sandstone engraved with ‘black magical’ inscribings, and another which contained the mechanical contraption and the white powder.

    But it gets even better! . . .

    Once I had submitted my Defence to the Bournemouth Magistrate’s Court where it was scheduled to be heard, the Crown Prosecution Service unexpectedly dropped the charges, but informed me that it would remain on file in case anything else happened. To put it mildly, I was furious and immediately informed the Court that I would be lodging the case back into Court for a full Hearing.

    This I did, and when the case was heard in April 2002, I was formally acquitted and awarded full costs.

    Mr. Manchester was nowhere to be seen at the final Court Hearing.

    David Farrant
    President, British Psychic and Occult Society




    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A man he has not met, someone, moreover, with whom he has never had contact in any shape or form, is described by David Farrant as "a rather ‘backward’ member" of the Bishop's friends.

      This really sums up the man. Farrant, not Keith who, in fact, enrolled at teacher's training college while Farrant was giving the press and the police a merry run around and getting himself raided and charged with multifarious criminal acts.

      Keith is highly intelligent and an exceptionally kind and generous individual. If only the same could be said for Farrant who left school at the earliest possible age, having been expelled from every institution he attended, and went on to made bankrupt within months of receiving an inheritance from his father and at the same time be evicted from a flat for non-payment of rent. Apart from working in Woolworths as an assistant storeman for less than a fortnight (when he was sacked), the London Underground as a guard for an equally small amount of time and a hospital porter for a similar period before his dismissal, David Farrant has not done an honest day's work in his life.

      Two libel suits brought by Farrant resulted in the News of the World (on a claim that his publicity-seeking was a substitute for his low sexual libido) failing to produce their principal defence witness owing 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 of being insane) where £20,000 court costs were awarded against him. In the News of the World action, which he won on a technicality, he was awarded the derisory sum of £50 with court costs awarded against him. The newspaper’s star witness who failed to appear for their defence was Martine de Sacy, an ex-girlfriend of Farrant’s who was identified as the naked female in the infamous “nude rituals trial” at the Old Bailey in June 1974. She was persuaded not to appear by her ex-boyfriend, causing the News of the World to lose their star witness. Farrant was arrested in December 2002 and charged with the harassment of several people, including Bishop Seán Manchester and his wife, but the Crown Prosecution Service did not proceed owing to Farrant being careful to stagger incidents which made the precise paragraph of the Act used to charge him invalid. Had the police charged him under the Malicious Mail Act the CPS would have gone ahead, but this Act only carries a fine whereas the Protection from Harassment Act evoked by the police following numerous complaints lodged with them by recipients of Farrant's unsolicited incitements of hatred in self-published pamphlets — predominantly against the bishop and his wife — carries a custodial sentence.

      Subsequent complaints to the police in 2007 from his ex-girlfriend, Catherine Fearnley, concerning alleged death threats against her and the threatened publication of inappropriate photographs came to nothing.

      Delete
  42. So Patrick's not "quite intelligent and good-humoured" after all! I can only ask, David, why you remained friends with him for so long.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Golly, gosh and my goodness. Your post must surely have boosted your readership in new and unexpected directions, WC! It's also a fine example, is it not, of something the internet is very, very good at. But we have come a long way from your central point about a bishop, a congregation and the Holy Spirit...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Haven't we? It was actually at least half-serious.

      And only this very day I found myself in an idle moment googling the infamous case of the Vicar of Stiffkey (which we were all taught about at college), which led to an attempt to find the actual rite for defrocking in the Anglican dispensation, which led further to Father Zuhlsdorf's blog, and another thread about ... Bishop J Blake.

      Delete
  44. gloriamundi, when Manchester or Farrant are mentioned anywhere online, except the flies to come buzzing in! I guess that includes me. Bzz.

    But on the central point, it's basically this: in 1973, Manchester founded the Holy Grail Church. After that, and well into the 1980s, he was also heavily involved in the occult (and before that, too, since we're at it). In between that time, he challenged Farrant to duels, engaged in an "occult duel" with John Pope, crafted a Nazi hoax story for the press, wrote his vampire story (presenting it as a non-fiction account), pretended to be a Lord (by virtue of his dubious connection to Lord Byron) and finally settled into the priesthood before having himself ordained as a bishop for his own Old Catholic Church spin-off. His church is "autocephalous", which essentially means he was really only in it for the title and so he couldn't have his title stripped from him. Which, as you can see from his behaviour by using sockpuppets like "Friends of Bishop Seán Manchester" (one of many fake identities) to harass and malign people, would warrant his expulsion. That doesn't even factor in his penchant for Nazism...

    He was laicised by one of the bishops who ordained him, for not disclosing his prior involvement in the occult, but Manchester counters that the bishop had no authority to do so (see: autocephalous angle).

    As I've mentioned, his church's history is plagiarised and he frequently plagiarises religious writings on his blog. Among other writers. One could even argue that his 1985 book, "The Highgate Vampire", is a "Dracula" pastiche.

    There are no details available on his congregation, little alone the priests who, you'd think, would be serving under him. There's also the possibility of tax-dodging motives, as Mr. Farrant already established. You'll find little in the way of spiritual substance in his writings, which you couldn't get from sources like the Catholic Encyclopedia - which Manchester's also plagiarised. It's been noted that the 1995 book he wrote on his church also features plagiarism.

    So, make from all this what you will.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Oh, and last but not least - despite suggesting Farrant should be prayed for and/or ignored...

    "I prefer to deny him the oxygen of publicity where I am concerned and advise others to do the same. Those who feel enraged by his behaviour and personally want to confront him should remember he is still one of God's creatures, and, if possible, they should pray for him. Pray for his state of mind and endangered soul. Otherwise, please just ignore him."

    Source: http://therightreverendseanmanchester.blogspot.com.au/2009/11/adventus.html

    ...not only is Manchester - and his sockpuppets one of Farrant's biggest publicists, he clearly can't bring himself to stop slagging him off. I'll also add that even his own church website is lined with anti-Farrant stuff. Strangely, it doesn't mention the location of his church, nor attendance times. But I guess Manchester has other priorities.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Shall we strip away some of this patronising hyperbole and get down to some more credible facts?



    I put it to you, Sean Manchester, that for all your homophobic ranting and slurring about Bishop Thomas you were fully aware that he was sympathetic towards homosexuals a long time before he helped elevate you to the priesthood.



    I put it to you also that you sought out Bishop Thomas in your attempts to get ordained because less open-minded Old Catholic clergy would not have touched you with the proverbial bargepole. You are fond of stating that you excommunicated Bishop Thomas after being made aware of evidence that he had blessed homosexual unions, and had illicitly consecrated occultists and criminals.



    You yourself, sir, are a criminal and an ‘ex’ occultist. I say ‘ex’ because your habitual lying does not induce confidence in any assertion that you have given all that up for good. To whit, you deny ever having practiced the occult. You may be telling the truth there for once; if you are, you are merely demonstrating that in the past you adopted the mantle of an occultist for publicity purposes and self promotion, just as you have done with Christianity.



    The fact remains that during the 1970s you were featured in north London newspapers in a variety of occult poses and guises, and that you circulated similar images of yourself throughout this period and well into the 1990s, often sporting a T shirt emblazoned with a pentagram, or squatting within one on the floor.

    ReplyDelete
  47. You have also featured in newspaper articles which detail your instructions from the magistrate presiding over your court case for harassment of an occult nature at Stoke Newington court, which climaxed in you being ordered not to contact the young mother you had been harassing with ‘black magic phonecalls’ again.



    As Mr Farrant has pointed out here, in a later case the Bournemouth courts presumably considered you to have fabricated evidence in an attempt to pervert the course of justice. It strikes me that you were lucky to not be charged with wasting police time.



    I understand that you have also signed police warnings regarding your harassment of a number of other people.



    You also claim to be the original president of the British Occult Society – the clue is in the title of the society.



    Therefore, you are an occultist and a criminal, two of the social groups who you allegedly ‘excommunicated’ Bishop Thomas for consecrating.



    You point out that Bishop Thomas lived not far from David Farrant in Muswell Hill. I find it astonishing that Bishop Thomas had never read any of the morass of newspaper articles which you contrived to be published about yourself and your occult activities throughout the 1970s and 1980s.



    The fact that you are now using the fact that Bishop Thomas appears to have been open minded about consecrating reformed occultists as a stick to beat him with post-mortem is rather distasteful, considering that if it wasn’t for him you would not have got away with precisely that.



    It is my belief that your invalid excommunication of Bishop Thomas was a simple act of spite, and that this alone renders it invalid as your intentions were not pure and were certainly devoid of any self-examination. In short, you took advantage of his open-minded and generous nature, then turned on him with a barrage of defamation and malice when he dared to criticise your ongoing hate campaigns against various people – some of which you have even chronicled in print!

    ReplyDelete
  48. Bishop Thomas’ earlier laicisation of yourself (which IS valid and binding meaning in layman’s terms that you are not only not a bishop in any recognised sense but are not even a priest) is reproduced in part below for the benefit of interested parties:



    “Proclamation from Archbishop Thomas

    To Sean Patrick Manchester



    This document being an Instrument of Laicisation in the name of the Most Holy Undivided Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Amen



    I, The most Recd. Iltyd Thomas, Servant of Our Lord and Saviour Lord Jesus Christ, By the Grace of God, Bishop in The Old Catholic Church of Utrecht Succession, who did give you Holy orders, to the above named Sean Manchester, and again who on the 14th October 1991 did bestow upon him Episcopal Consecration which in itself was null and void as Sean Manchester had not declared he had been involved for some years in the occult which is strictly condemned by Christianity and Christendom . Therefore Bishop Thomas would not have given Holy Orders, to the above named. Therefore we declare His Orders invalid. His canonical oath useless and of no importance.



    An Anathema upon any person or persons who deliberately set aside this information.”



    Soon after this document was signed and delivered, I understand that another two OCC affiliates were also defrocked by Bishop Thomas:



    “Proclamation of Archbishop Illtyd Thomas



    To Two Persons Called John Kersey and Andrew Linley



    I the Most Reverend Illtyd Thomas. Servant of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. By the Grace of God, Bishop in the Old Catholic Church of the Utrecht Succession. Who had given Holy Orders to the above two men, and did bestow upon them Episcopal Consecration, 20th July 2006, in good faith. But they both, obtain these religious orders under false impressions, as their living and behaviour, in their conduct specified them as religious freaks. Who have been guilty of obtaining religious articles under false impressions, the likes should now be returned, offences against the law, they both possess qualities that are foolish, and impudent with small consciences influenced by having grandiose ideas, they both degrade and deprive apostolic authority by Violating a code of honour contrary to moral law.”



    One rather feels that the above sentiments are equally applicable to yourself, Manchester.

    There is nothing morally acceptable about writing hateblogs about people, extolling nazi values or wasting one’s time indulging in tittle tattle on the internet rather applying oneself to the role one assumes for the purposes of having a title – namely being a bishop in your case, with the subsequent responsibility to represent and protect the reputation and values of the Christian faith.



    Bishops, at least sincere ones, do not make black magic phone calls, practice the occult, threaten and intimidate people online and in person, or use their ‘position’ for nothing more than tax evasion and self-aggrandisement. I do not believe you to be a bishop. In fact, I do not even believe you to be a Christian. You sir, are making a mockery of our Saviour’s sacrifice, and I trust and pray that you will be held account for this by One who’s judgment is irrevocable.



    Yours,



    Fr. John Montgomery

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How amusing that this Farrant flunkie employs the pseudonym "Fr. John Montgomery." The real Reverend John Montgomery was born on 21 January 1758 and would not have indulged in the gross libel being attributed to his name.

      The poorly executed document written in pencil on a scrap of notepaper by Illtyd Thomas which purports to be "an Instrument of Laicisation" is uncanonical in so far as Thomas did not have the authority to laicise anyone outside of his own jurisdiction and Bishop Seán Manchester at no time signed an oath of obedience to Illtyd Thomas. Moreover, Bishop Seán Manchester had not set eyes on Illtyd Thomas for a great many years when this absurd piece of notepaper was issued via David Farrant *after* Illtyd Thomas had already been excommunicated and anathematised.

      Bishop Seán Manchester was informed by the Ecclesiastical Law Society of matters previously unknown to him about Illtyd Thomas in 2002.

      Illtyd Thomas was an independent prelate who was totally unconnected to Bishop Seán Manchester's jurisdiction.

      The evidence placed Illtyd Thomas under the threat of excommunication and anathematisation, and it was substantial.

      The next period was spent painstakingly investigating all the facts and trying to determine whether the elderly prelate was still alive. In 2006, it was confirmed that Thomas was not deceased and by that time the evidence provided by the Ecclesiastical Law Society satisfied those investigating, Bishop Seán Manchester included, to prepare for a solemn excommunication.

      Illtyd Thomas was informed of the charges against him should he wish to challenge any of the evidence. He did not challenge any of the evidence.

      Instead of responding, Illtyd Thomas issued a threat of his own that was uncanonical and invalid. This he did through David Farrant who published Illtyd Thomas’ statement on the internet. In his statement, Thomas, based on Farrant’s misinformation, falsely accused Bishop Seán Manchester of participating in the occult. Further evidence appeared on the internet of collusion between Thomas and Farrant. This evidence included photographs of the prelate with Farrant and others at Farrant’s attic bedsitting room in Muswell Hill Road. Farrant’s then girlfriend, Catherine Fearnley, later confirmed that Illtyd Thomas and his “deacon” Ian Kacrzowski exhibited strong interest in witchcraft and the occult. Ian Kacrzowski belonged to Thomas' jurisdiction. Bishop Seán Manchester did not and never had belonged to Thomas' jurisdiction.

      A solemn excommunication and anathematisation was carried out on St David's Day, 1 March 2007, due to Illtyd Thomas’ sexual perversion, association and collusion with notorious pederasts and occultists, acceptance of sodomy and his own homosexual practices (something he had always strenuously denied to Bishop Seán Manchester and others belonging to the latter's Order, but apparently admitted to David Farrant), and attempts to cause injury to the Bishop Seán Manchester's ministry and Church. The excommunication was made known to other denominations, including the Roman Catholic Church at Westminster, and was met with total support from all without exception.

      Bishop Seán Manchester knew nothing about Illtyd Thomas' sexual perversion and involvement with occult practioners until it was brought to his attention in 2002.

      Bishop Seán Manchester was the president of an occult investigation bureau from 1967 to 1988 which investigated the claims of occultist groups and individuals. As revealed by him from 1988 onward, he oftentimes operated covertly to discover the truth of what went on in occult circles. He spoke about his findings in radio and television programmes in the 1980s and 1990s, and, of course, published some of them in "From Satan To Christ" (1988).

      Delete
  49. Wrong yet again Sean. And people may notice that you’ve totally ignored the facts I presented that proved the police and Bournemouth Court, and the Crown Prosecution Service, were satisified that you’d fabricated malicious mail (supposedly from myself) to yourself. After studying the statement I’d sworn into Court exposing your illegal activity, I was formally acquitted and awarded considerable costs. Stop lying to people Sean!

    In my libel action against the News of the world back in 1980 against a French girl who gave them a fabricated story against myself (to the effect that I ‘sacrified cats’ at Satanic ceremonies and was a ‘failure as a lover’), it was established at the High Court that the girl (Martine de Sacy) considered that she had been ‘jilted’ by myself, which was why she had invented her story – to get her revenge, you might say. The old expression “Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned”, comes to mind here.
    I did not attempt to keep her from coming to Court. I wanted her there. As it transpired the News of the World succeeded in calling the French journalist to Court who had taken her original story in 1974, and it was established to the jury that the girl had been lying. I won the case and won considerable costs. You already know all that as we personally discussed this back in 1981 when you visited my flat and discussed my awarded costs. You were secretly recorded by myself and I published an exact transcript of our statements in my book “The Seangate Tapes”, and anyone wanting a copy of this book has only to contact myself (giving a postal address) and I will send one.

    So deliberately lying yet again Sean. You’d think a person such as your yourself who is claiming to a ‘bishop’, would realise that this is a decidedly unchristian act! (I also have a complete copy of this tape, and I am quite willing to send a copy to any interested parties).

    David Farrant
    President, British Psychic and Occult Society

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The police and courts will confirm that David Farrant was arrested in December 2002 and charged with the harassment of several people, including Bishop Seán Manchester and his wife.

      The police and courts will also confirm that the Crown Prosecution Service did not proceed owing to Farrant being careful to stagger incidents which made the precise paragraph of the Act used to charge him invalid.

      The police admitted that had they charged Farrant under the Malicious Mail Act the CPS would have gone ahead.

      The Malicious Mail Act, however, only carries a fine whereas the Protection from Harassment Act which was actually employed by the police following numerous complaints lodged with them by recipients of Farrant's unsolicited incitements of hatred carries a custodial sentence.

      Delete
    2. “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).

      Delete
  50. There is only one liar at the root of all this controversy.

    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).

    ReplyDelete
  51. My apologies in advance to anyone I might offend but you don’t half talk a lot of shit Sean!

    From your repeated cut and paste jobs of the same old, same old anti-Farrant propaganda is it quite clear that you’re getting increasing desperate from the factual onslaughts you are receiving from all corners! But nevertheless I will personally address one particularly big stinker:

    “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.”

    Whilst I can accept that it was quite possible that stories were circulating Highgate’s pubs prior to David’s initial letter to the Ham and High, all indications point them referring to their being ghostly activity - not vampiric. Certainly there was no mention from David, the local paper, or by the letter correspondents of any local vampire legends or sightings. Not at least until you told your rather hackneyed Wallacian nobleman theory to a journalist – and one that was directly ripped from pages of Stoker’s Dracula too!

    But all the same let’s just for one moment give you the benefit of the doubt. If what you claim is all true and that a vampire did indeed once stalk the grounds of Highgate Cemetery West all those years ago, and furthermore it well known local legend; then why didn’t David acknowledge this in his letter? And why would he even need to fake his involvement as he had as much chance as anyone else when it came to encountering your undead aristocrat during one of his many nocturnal visits? Or at the very least find evidence that it was even there?

    You even infer that he roped in some of his friends to help give his hoax some credence. But why even bother to do so if it was already a well established local legend, and one just ripe for media exposure and exploitation? There would be plenty of local people unconnected to David with their own stories and experiences to share, and they would’ve been prompted to do so after reading David’s letter surely? And we know that some did in the weeks that followed.

    Though whilst it’s true that David should have disclosed his prior association to Audrey, Kenneth and Nava at the time, it does not necessarily invalidate their own personal testimonies. As David has said many times before, he was not investigating Highgate Cemetery alone. Might it just be possible that they accompanied him at some point? Or at the very least were just as aware of the local legend and stories as he?

    If anything isle you should at least give them some credit for signing their letters with their own names. Unfortunately the same couldn’t be said of you, can it eh Peter Lord? Or should that be George Byron?

    ReplyDelete
  52. I wouldn't call that a stinker. After all, Farrant himself has acknowledged a vampire aspect to it in at least three ways. Firstly, the descriptions he's used for it: "vampire", "vampire-like", "psychic entity with vampire-like characteristics", etc. Even if these are terms of convenience, well, so is "ghost".

    Second, Farrant has linked the vampire - or beliefs about it being a vampire - as far back as the 14th century. In his book, "Beyond the Highgate Vampire", he suggests that cases of premature burial from the time of the Black Death could've triggered vampire associations. However, he doesn't cite a single case to that effect.

    Third, he has directly linked it to Bram Stoker, specifically, his 1897 novel, "Dracula". His contention holds that Stoker must've known about Farrant's "entity" because his novel features a "vampiric entity" in Highgate Cemetery. He's of course referring to the vampirised Lucy Westenra. If there was no vampire connection, that's a remarkably strange connection to make. And one bereft of proof, no less, because Stoker left no such record of his supposed knowledge of this being, and there's no solid evidence establishing Westenra's burial place in Highgate Cemetery in the first place. See: http://spamosphere.blogspot.com.au/2010/11/bram-stoker-vs-highgate.html

    And, of course, there's his appearance alongside Manchester in an article that was published a week after Manchester's vampire theory was: "Why Do the Foxes Die?" (Hampstead & Highgate Express, 6 March 1970), in which Farrant agrees to the possibility of Manchester's conclusion, i.e. that a vampire was responsible for the appearance of dead foxes in the cemetery. However, since then, Farrant claims he was merely humouring the reporter.

    As to the spectre stories, themselves, well - they were hardly consistent. Few respondents - including Frewin - actually said they saw a spectre at the cemetery. And even so, the descriptions don't exactly match, despite Farrant's claim that they did in his follow up letter, published in the newspaper's 27 February 1970 issue. Considering the handful of respondents were also represented by a decent amount of people known to Farrant and/or Manchester, it certainly sounds fishy, whether they provided their real names or not. If anything, there's a whiff of collaboration to it. For instance, if, indeed, Farrant was the true head of the BOS, I find it distinctly odd that he'd allow Manchester to claim the title to the press, while he represented himself as a layperson.

    Oh, and the references to these secret recordings - they seem to have been made as some form of "insurance" against Manchester - they were recorded in the early 1980s, but only published in the 2000s, some time after their falling out. Add it all up, and it does seem pretty suss.

    Now, as to "Friends of Bishop Seán Manchester", it's pretty obvious he's not here for a reasoned discussion. He's trying to obfuscate proof against his "friend" (they're likely one and the same person, as has been established by now) by copy-pasting the usual reams of drivel. Not that all of it has no substance, mind, just that it's obviously trying to take the heat off Manchester's ecclesiastical claims. But that "Friends" can't counter with anything decent, despite strong evidence to the contrary, says a lot in itself. I also find it funny in their desperation to take the heat off Manchester's dodginess, they're blatantly ignoring what he says about "ignoring" and "praying" for Farrant, which only highlights how facetious he is. So much for "Friends".

    ReplyDelete
  53. That last point is particularly pertinent, considering the high-n-mighty religious angle "Friends" has been deciding to take - while blatantly ignoring the shifty behaviour (to say the least) of his mate.

    Perhaps they should less fixated on homosexuality and shady titles, and more time looking in the mirror.

    ReplyDelete


  54. Thanks for pointing that out Redmond. Whilst it is true that I knew two of the people who wrote to the Ham and High about the Highgate ghost story way back in 1970 (Mr. Kenny Frewin and Nava Arieli) and they knew one other marginally, you have to remember that the ghost (or whatever it was) was the talking point of Highgate Village at the time, and many people were discussing in various pubs. As is common with ghost stories around the UK (or other parts of the world come to that), people tend to share their opinions; or tend to speculate about what a given apparition could possibly be.

    To begin with Kenny Frewin, he was a personal friend and I had known him and his wife (and small daughter) since 1967. He lived in Highgate and was well aware of these local legends and stories. He was also a member of the British Psychic and Occult Society who were then investigating the case.

    If I remember correctly (I do not have the newspaper letter to hand) he stated that the Highgate ghost took the form of a pale figure and had been appearing for several years. This was not what my own personal experience of the figure had been. I stated that it was reported by witnesses as being a tall DARK figure – not a pale one – so Kenny was speaking in general terms about what he had heard other people say. He had every right to do that as it was his letter and he was not influenced by myself.

    Nava Arieli, also a then active member of the BPOS and an active spiritualist, and had seen ‘the same type of apparition’ a year before this, wrote to the newspaper to say the Highgate apparition should be investigated, which she was aware the BPOS were in the process of doing.

    Mr. Manchester claims (and only Mr. Manchester let us remember) that this stands as evidence of a hoax, as indeed does one other letter from a Ms. Audrey Connelly who says she was with her fiancé in Highgate Cemetery when they spotted an unusual form that ‘just seemed to glide across the path.’ He implies that I personally knew Audrey Connelly, which was not the case. It is true that I knew her husband Mickey, but so did Mr. Manchester when he used to visit the Prince of Wales pub with his close friend Mr. Tony Hill . . . Cont

    ReplyDelete
  55. Mr. Manchester (together with Mr Hill) took quite a few pictures of myself inside Highgate Cemetery and his Holloway Road flat. He told me that these photographs were for a book he was writing on Highgate Cemetery which was why I allowed them to take these photographs.

    On one of his visits to my flat in 1981 (one of many I secretly taped) he brought up the subject of Audrey Connolly and informed me that she used to cut Tony’s hair some years before. This surprised me as I had not previously known this fact, nor the fact of their friendship as discussed on the tape. Perhaps even more significantly Mr Manchester’s tone on the tape is clearly that of someone INFORMING another person of facts, not discussing something which both parties are already aware of. If Mr Manchester is accusing Mrs Connelly’s letter of being a hoax, perhaps he should take this up with his erstwhile companion Mr Hill, who assisted him so much with his own hoax, namely the whole saga of ‘The Highgate Vampire’. But I am nevertheless in possession of these tapes and am quite willing to send copies of these of any serious parties or researchers. These tapes establish beyond any doubt that it was Mr. Tony Hill who knew Audrey Connelly personally. They also establish that it was Mr. Hill and Mr. Manchester himself who tried to perpetrate a ‘vampire hoax’ at Highgate Cemetery. Far from demonstrating Mr Manchester’s sense of Christian duty to rid the world of demonic revenants, these candid tapes demonstrate him discussing ‘vampire business’ as casually as he might discuss the stock exchange or the price of eggs. Vampires, like anything else which gets him newspaper lineage are simply currency to him. The fact that he is now trying to project his ‘hoax theory’ onto myself, is just further proof of the asinine lengths to which Mr. Manchester will stoop to ‘demonise’ my name by trying to fool the gullible and unwary!

    David Farrant, President, BPOS.

    ReplyDelete
  56. So Kenny was a member of your society too... interesting. First time I've heard of it. And if it's been mentioned elsewhere, feel free to point it out. In the meantime, here's the letters you've mentioned:

    WITH reference to the letter in last week’s Ham and High, many local people have seen Mr. Farrant’s ghost in Highgate Cemetery.

    The ghost will sometimes appear nightly for about a week, and then not be seen again for perhaps a month.

    To my knowledge the ghost always takes the form of a pale figure and has been appearing for several years.

    –K. FREWIN,
    13 Mountbatten House,
    Hillcrest, North Hill, N6.

    Source: Hampstead & Highgate Express, 13 February 1970, p. 25.

    Nava's letter appeared in the same issue, on the same page:

    ALTHOUGH I observed the same type of apparition about a year ago, there is a possibility that a certain type of imagination is required.

    Being a spiritualist, I can only see this as something requiring an investigation by somebody able to understand a world removed from the materialistic, habit-ridden life.

    Congratulations, Mr. Farrant, on drawing people’s attention to this.

    –NAVA ARIELL,
    11 Rosslyn Hill, NW 1.

    Speaking of Nava, your autobiography reveals your connection to her: you were having a sexual relationship with her at the time.

    The same issue also features Audrey's letter:

    MY FIANCE and I spotted a most unusual form about a year ago. It just seemed to glide across the path. Although we waited a little while, it did not reappear again.

    I am glad somebody else has spotted it; I was convinced it was not my imagination.

    –MISS AUDREY CONNELY,
    1 North Hill, N6.

    As did Docherty's:

    THERE is without doubt a ghost. Of when and whom he originated I do not know. Many tales are told, however, about a tall man in a hat who walks across Swain’s Lane and just disappears through a wall into the cemetery.

    Local superstition also has it that the bells in the old disused chapel inside the cemetery toll mysteriously whenever he walks.

    –R. DOCHERTY,
    69 Highgate West Hill, N6.

    Those are all the letters that immediately followed the publication of your letter - all people known to you or Manchester (the same person you said was a member of your society): and Kenny making no mention that he was a member of BOS (depending on whose story we believe there, re: you being the prez or Manny).

    And speaking of Manchester, you said he was a member of BOS - and you kicked him out in August, 1970. Yet, for some strange reason, you sat back and let Manny take the title of the society's prez. And appeared alongside him when he did. You've also mentioned that you were still visiting him up to the mid-80s.

    So if you were sitting on all this evidence against Manchester for well-over a decade (including the Magister stunt from 1973, which was conducted in your apartment), I can only wonder why you didn't disclose it long before your major falling out with him, instead of after the publication of his 1985 book, The Highgate Vampire. Let's not forget you were also participating in stunts with him for the press (the "duels"). And the "dead foxes" article.

    It sounds almost as if you were trying to protect him... But, in a way, yourself, too, hence the "insurance" of secret recordings. What a strange relationship. As to Hill, you were an associate of his, too - indeed, you were even living with him in his "coal cellar", as Manny likes to put it.

    Now, I'm not saying all of this is conclusive proof of guilt-by-association, but that's a hell of a small circle writing into the paper in the immediate aftermath of your letter (there are other "connections" in the subsequent replies). People known to you and Manchester - and you both knew each other. As you've said, he was a member of your society. Supposedly.

    As to your tapes, I'd love to hear them. Are they available in mp3 format?

    ReplyDelete
  57. Incidentally, if these were stories circulating Highgate Village at the time, it's certainly odd that people known to you and Manchester would be the only people writing letters into the Ham & High about it. It sounds like a bit of a set-up in the style of the Victoria Jervis testimony.

    There's only one totally independent affirmation of your sighting (presuming she wasn't known to you and Manchester, either), which explicitly alludes to your own, and it's this:

    THE GHOST startled a friend and myself who we were returning home from nightly duty.

    Being nurses we are able to deal with most situations, but the ghost, which seemed to be walking towards us from inside the gates, sent us running up Swains Lane as fast as we could.

    –MISS C. STRINGER,
    78 Woodland Gardens, N10.

    Unfortunately, the details are too vague to make a stronger connection to your account.

    And yet, in your follow-up letter (27 February 1970), you wrote:

    YOU can imagine how relieved I was to discover by the response in the letter columns that I am not alone in witnessing the spectre that haunts Swains Lane.

    Moreover, that other readers’ descriptions of the ghost correspond exactly with my experiences has left me stunned, though glad that my sanity can no longer be held in question.

    –DAVID FARRANT,
    9 Priestwood Mansions,
    Archway Road, N6.

    Except they didn't "correspond exactly" with your own, as anyone who's actually read the letters will see. Even folklorist Bill Ellis pointed this out in his 1993 essay on the case.

    So, yeah, all up, it does come across as very fishy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Published letters to the editor of the Hampstead & Highgate Express followed immediately in the wake of David Farrant's own letter claiming three sightings of a ghost-like figure at London's Highgate Cemetery.

      The first is written by Kenny Frewin, complete with Frewins genuine address at the time. He was a close personal friend of David Farrant and often acted as his "minder" throughout the 1970s and 1980s.

      The second is also written by a close friend of Farrant. Farrant knew both Audrey and her husband Michael Connely, the latter joining him and his wife, Mary Farrant, on drunken forays with others to the graveyard after the pubs closed in the late 1960s. The only alteration is her married status from "Mrs" to "Miss".

      The third letter is written by someone by the name of R Docherty who was an acquaintance of Farrant.

      The fourth counterfeit letter to the local newspaper is attributed to "Nava Arieli" but, in fact, was written by Nava Grunberg (later to become Nava Jehans) who was undoubtedly Farrant's closest friend (and occasional girlfriend) at the time. The address is not hers. She lived in Hampstead Lane in 1970, and still does.

      The next couple of fake letters are no less interesting. Yossell Baker often drank in the Prince of Wales pub with Farrant and their mutual friends. He was drawn into the ghost hoax by Farrant. His real name and address was used on this fake correspondence.

      Finally, we come to a bogus letter written by a certain J McKennar of 142 Muswell Hill Road, N10. By a curious coincidence that is David Farrant's current address where he has resided ever since his parole release from prison in 1976.

      When David Farrant wrote his original hoax letter of 6 February 1970 he occuppied Tony Hill's coal bunker in a communal cellar belonging to 9 Priestwood Mansions, 294 Archway Road, N6. Hill was in on the hoax and can be heard colluding with Farrant in conversations secretly recorded in December 1969, January and February 1970.

      http://highgatevampire.blogspot.co.uk/2011/11/and-finally.html

      Delete
  58. Prison correspondence (with the envelope in which it arrived that was sent care of an address where David Farrant had occupied a coal bunker belonging to its occupant, Tony Hill, in Archway Road) from "A D Farrow" (a pseudonym given to police by Farrant when he was arrested in Highgate Cemetery on the night of 17 August 1970) to Seán Manchester, president of the British Occult Society, an organisation for the study and research of hidden phenomena.

    The British Occult Society, prior to its dissolution in 1988, was run by Seán Manchester.

    The BOS made its television debut on 13 March 1970 when its president featured on Today (Thames Television) to represent the Society’s investigation into reported happenings in and around Highgate Cemetery, London, that had been accumulating since early 1967. A number of witnesses to an alleged vampire spectre were also interviewed by Sandra Harris for Today. These consisted largely of children and a young man.

    When asked what he had seen by Sandra Harris, the young man, David Farrant, described what he alleged to have encountered a few weeks earlier as looking as though it had been dead for a long time, insisting that it was evil.

    Farrant's description would alter radically in later years. It eventually became mist with two red eyes when he described it a quarter of a century later.

    Throughout 1970, Farrant made no pretence of any association or membership within the British Occult Society. Needless to say, he was not then, or at any time, a member of the British Occult Society.

    Seán Manchester, then as now, held fast to traditional Christianity, having studied the occult. During the 1970s and 1980s he sometimes operated covertly within occult circles to gain first-hand intelligence. This much became apparent in 1988 with the publication of "From Satan To Christ" and again in 1997 would be confirmed in "The Vampire Hunter's Handbook."

    http://highgatevampire.blogspot.co.uk/2009/08/prison-correspondence-from-lone-vampire.html

    ReplyDelete
  59. From 1971, David Farrant began to describe himself as a wiccan high priest and occultist, who was also involved in spiritism. In August 1995, however, he revealed in an amateur Dutch magazine home-produced by vampire enthusiast Rob Brautigam that he was "in fact no longer a wiccan as such" and was "no longer dependent on any man-made creeds or inflicted doctrines." That notwithstanding, prior to the autumn of 1970, he was neither wiccan nor occultist, and seemed closer to something more resembling Roman Catholicism; wearing, as he did, a Catholic rosary with crucifix around his neck for press and television interviews.

    Seán Manchester and David Farrant have only appeared on the same television transmission twice, both times in 1970, when Seán Manchester represented the British Occult Society on the Today programme, 13 March 1970, and, some months later, on the BBC’s 24 Hours programme, 15 October 1970.

    Farrant’s appearance on Today was as one of a number of witnesses who claimed to have seen a vampire, and on 24 Hours as someone who had been arrested in Highgate Cemetery whilst attempting to stalk and impale the rumoured vampire.

    In the second of these television interviews, filmed by the BBC on location at Highgate Cemetery, Farrant demonstrated his stalking technique with a home-made cross and wooden stake which he produced from inside his trousers, whilst adorned with a Roman Catholic rosary around his neck.

    There was no mention by Farrant of him being involved in wicca or the occult. He did, however, echo the fact that Satanists had used the cemetery for clandestine ceremonies. This view was also held by Seán Manchester and his Society, the police, the media, and many members of the public.

    http://www.holygrail-church.fsnet.co.uk/24Hours.htm

    ReplyDelete
  60. Sean you are so keen to discredit David's account that you never seem to realise that you are in real danger of further undermining your own in the process. As I've said many times before - if indeed there were stories of a supernatural entity (be it ghost, vampire or otherwise) prowling Highgate Cemetery from the late Sixties onwards already doing the rounds in Highgate's pubs (something that David also acknowledges), then why would he need to fake anything? Or get his friends to lend it any credence? We have to remember that David frequented these very same pubs himself... something else that you are always so keen to emphasize in your usual cut and paste bile i.e. portraying David as an inveterate boozer.

    David's initial letter was hardly controversial in that regard... he was essentially confirming that all those pub tales and gossip were true. And to top it all, he ended his letter with an appeal for more information/ sightings from the public. And of course the public duly obliged – with many of their correspondence ending up being reproduced in your own book! So if anything you should be thanking David for assisting you in providing you with material and a platform for you to further exploit with all your Vampire nonsense.

    And although you are now quick to distance yourself from those first set of letters today, you showed no reticence to do so in 1975, 1985, 1991 or 1997. You say that Tony Hill changed your opinion on that, and post 1997 with his so called 'revelations' but I seriously doubt it. It was quite clear by 1991 just what your feelings were on David; yet you still reproduced a great chunk of his letter (sans credit); along with many of the letters that followed its publication. Anthony makes a good point in that you knew also these people in 1970 – via Tony Hill of all people! You claim that Hill has since confided in you that he colluded with David in propagating a hoax but in your long association why did he wait so long to spill the beans? And why haven’t we heard him say so in his own words?

    One is almost hoping that you will go ahead and write that often hinted at third edition of The Highgate Vampire to see whether you will drop this material. And if you do will you then fill that void with some decent evidence for your own vampire claims?

    But I’m guessing that you will ignore this post just like you have done with all the other; particularly those that have brought into question your ecclesiastical credentials. Some things never change eh Sean? Like your hero Joseph Goebbels you will just keep on repeating your nonsense in the vain hope it that people will eventually come to swallow it hook, line and sinker.

    Well not on our watch sunshine!

    ReplyDelete
  61. It is irrelevant whether there existed this or that spooky story in the preceding period. What *is* relevant is that David Farrant's lone intervention was fraudulent from start to finish. The proof is overwhelming with evidence that he hoaxed his "ghost". Photographs, tape-recordings and witness statements attest to that fact without mentioning all his many contradictions from the first moment he decided to go public.

    For example, he wrote a letter to his local newspaper in February 1970 claiming to have had three sightings of a ghostly apparition as he passed by the gates of London's Highgate Cemetery. Yet, he told Andrew Gough (Arcadia, 12 December 2009):

    "For a start, my letter to the Ham and High in 1970 badly misquoted myself (not deliberately I concede). I did not say that I had seen the figure (ghost) ‘on three occassions’: I was describing a figure that I said ‘had been seen on at least three occasions’. This is true – it had. But on these occasions, the witnesses were other people whom I had witnessed by this time."

    This is what Farrant actually 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."

    Just in case you missed it, his letter opens with these words:

    "ON THREE OCCASIONS I HAVE SEEN WHAT APPEARED TO BE A GHOST-LIKE FIGURE INSIDE THE GATES AT THE TOP OF SWAINS LANE."

    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 BOS north London headquarters, and also on location at Highgate Cemetery. The man representing the British Occult Society was obviously not Farrant even though the 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 claimed. In the BBC programme the words are heard from his own mouth and there is no escaping them.

    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.”

    Today he claims he only saw it once.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Yes, it's unfortunate "Friends" has resorted to copy-paste bombing this blog post, because there are definitely some gold nuggets in the guff. However, I can only wonder how "Friends" knows personal details about Nava and co, unless there wasn't another level of prior association there. However, I would dispute the letters merely confirmed tales being told around a pub - especially with the recent revelation that Frewin was also a member of the British Occult Society (as the organisation was then called). A sizeable chunk of these letters were submitted by people known to Manchester and/or Farrant - and considering that Farrant claims Manchester, too, was a member of BOS (yet, strangely, was allowed to claim its presidency while Manchester appeared alongside him in the press), clearly something is afoot here.

    As to the supposed "conversations secretly recorded in December 1969, January and February 1970", these were publicised via secondhand sockpuppet sources, not directly from Tony Hill, himself, as you've mentioned. They'd certainly be the nail in the coffin for Farrant's claims - yet, despite holding a smoking gun that'd bury Manchester's nemesis, they've not surfaced anywhere or even been quoted from. That's very telling. Allusions to secret recordings are not proof, therefore, "Friends"'s copy-paste drivel must be taken with a grain of salt.

    ReplyDelete
  63. As "Friends" points out, there's very clear revisionism going on in Farrant's story, which can't just be blamed on faulty memory, especially as it's in writing. Indeed, Redmond, you mentioned that Farrant ended his letter with an appeal to other readers. Except, Farrant - until recently - denied doing such a thing. It was only on being confronted with a copy of his letter that he changed his tune.

    That said, to take "Friends" statement at face value: "The proof is overwhelming with evidence that he hoaxed his "ghost". Photographs, tape-recordings and witness statements attest to that fact without mentioning all his many contradictions from the first moment he decided to go public." Unfortunately, none of these witnesses have stepped forward and said that, themselves. The alleged recordings have not surfaced. And so on. "Friends" may've convinced himself that Farrant faked it, but the onus is on him to prove it to the public via the media he publicly posts on. Like this blog. It's not good enough to dismiss it as fake via evidence no one has public access too. It's redundant.

    If we use contradictions, alone, to prove Farrant faked his case - well, Manchester must've as well, by "Friends"' own logic: after all, his own work is riddled with revisionism. And, as has been established, he's a plagiarist, too.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Such correspondence that was published in good faith three decades ago included some of the faked letters without the author having prior knowledge that these were fraudulent. A third edition would obviously put that right.

    Let's be very clear about something. Back in 1970 Seán Manchester did not know any of the correspondents, and had become fallen out with Tony Hill some two years earlier (since 1968) for reasons already given in various writings of Seán Manchester's, not least "Stray Ghosts" (pertinent extracts of which were released online earlier this century).

    Seán Manchester's "feelings" about David Farrant were quite clear from 1970 onward. They have been at loggerheads ever since. Nothing changed in 1991 or 1997 or at any other time. The crucial year is and will always remain 1970.

    Seán Manchester’s adversary nowadays claims: "I dare to say that ridiculous ‘fanged vampires’ simply do not exist! If there is any ‘feud’ at all, that is the main reason for it: simply because I have said publicly – and repeatedly – that such entities simply do not exist."

    Farrant's disingenuous allegation appears on Andrew Gough's Arcadia. Is it true? Definitely not! The bad blood between them, according to Seán Manchester, was triggered in late 1970 when Farrant made black magic telephone threats to someone known to him (but not to Seán Manchester) who later committed suicide. Farrant attempted to convince his victim and her husband that Seán Manchester was the offender. The couple either fell prey to Farrant’s attempt to frame Seán Manchester, or colluded in Farrant’s scheme.

    This nevetheless led to an assault on Seán Manchester at the entrance to the north London offices of the British Occult Society and a subsequent court case which Seán Manchester won, albeit being bound over for twelve months due to the stitch-up orchestrated by Farrant.

    It was during this case that Seán Manchester learned about the black magic threats for the first time and naturally realised what had happened. Farrant sat grinning inanely in the public gallery as it slowly dawned upon him.

    This is where the decades of antipathy has its origin. The two have been enemies ever since.

    http://www.holygrail-church.fsnet.co.uk/EckerDuped.htm

    ReplyDelete
  65. For the attention of the genuine enquirer:

    Tape recordings of David Farrant at 9 Priestwood Mansions, 294 Archway Road, in conversation with others, principally Tony Hill, were made without Farrant's knowledge in the period leading up to the hoax correspondence which commenced with Farrant's letter to the editor of a local newspaper in February 1970.

    It is quite apparent listening to these recordings that Farrant is unaware of the tape-recorder's existence. He is heard to openly conspire with those present to hoax a ghost story to deceive the press and public alike. Hill and Farrant are heard discussing the motive, which was to admit at a later stage that the ghost story had been a hoax in order to demonstrate how gullible people are when it comes to the paranormal. It is patently obvious from these recordings that Farrant treated the paranormal and those who believed in it with contempt.

    When Farrant failed to keep his side of the bargain, having subsequently become addicted to publicity, Hill fell out with him.

    It is illegal in the UK to record someone without their knowledge or consent and then publish what is on the secretly recorded tape. Only in private and controlled sessions can such tapes be heard. Criminal proceedings could follow if they were made public.

    Therefore, any sincere enquirer (who is not antipathetic or otherwise negatively predisposed to Seán Manchester) who would like to listen to these tapes in part or in their entirety should contact Seán Manchester. The playing of the tapes will be conducted strictly in private. To remain within the law this must be on an individual basis, not groups, where the person requesting to listen to the tapes has an academic and erstwhile serious purpose and is not being frivolous, eg no curiosity-seekers or sensation-seeking journalists etc.

    ReplyDelete
  66. You're not authorised to speak on Manchester's behalf, so your "insider" knowledge is useless. As to not knowing any of the correspondents, that's wrong: "Peter Lord" wrote from Manchester's BOS HQ, i.e. his parent's place. Let's be "very clear" about that.

    As to Manchester's "feelings" about Farrant, it certainly didn't stop them participating in one of the weirdest "friendships" I've ever heard of, and something that clearly turned particularly acrimonious after the publication of his 1985 book, The Highgate Vampire.

    As to the "black magic" threats, the judge slapped Manchester with the punishment. Not Farrant. That is, the same rationale you use to condemn Farrant and what he was arrested for.

    Try and be consistent. There's no proof, whatsoever, for your counter-claim on the "black magic" calls. That's a classic case of passing the buck. Manchester didn't win the case, either.

    As to the rest, none of it obscures the fact, that by your own logic ("contradictions"), that Manchester's story is a lie, too.

    As to "grinning inanely in the public gallery", what, were you there? Did you personally witness it? Do you have any photographs proving such inanity? No. Of course not.

    There are many links between the two men - the most obvious being a mutual associate, Tony Hill - so don't obfuscate that, please.

    I also see you've clammed up on the supposed "secret recordings". Good. Because you've got no proof of that, either. For all we know, those claims could be fraudulent, too.

    If you're really Manchester's friend, you're doing him no favours.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There was never any "friendship" at any time between Seán Manchester and David Farrant who have possibly conducted the longest "feud" (largely due to Farrant constantly stoking the flames) between two people in British history. Soon it will have lasted forty-four years!

      Farrant admitted to making the black magic telephone calls to people in the Prince of Wales pub immediately after the case, including Tony Hill and Yossel Baker (both of whom have attested to hearing Farrant do this) among others present.

      Seán Manchester received no "punishment" as such. He was the plaintiff and was simply bound over to keep the peace due to the lies issued by the defence. The plaintiff cannot be "punished" unless tried themselves in a separate trial. This did not happen.

      Seán Manchester won the case as the defendant was found guilty of assault and consequently received a criminal record. Seán Manchester, who has no criminal convictions, received a sum of money from the Criminal Compensation Board due to the assault being proven and him winning the case. All this will be on record.

      Seán Manchester and Tony Hill had not spoken since 1968 for reasons given concerning the latter's behaviour (already chronicled elsewhere).

      The secret recordings are available to be heard on a one-to-one basis in private at a time and place at Seán Manchester's discretion.

      Delete
    2. There clearly was, "Friends", as David's own recordings reveal. Their association certainly didn't stop in 1970. On that point, David's clearly telling the truth. As to the feud - as this "Weeping Cross" notes - it's not one-sided. You're both as guilty as each other. Except when Manchester also lines his church website with it and has a lil army of sockpuppets, like yourself, it's clear it's his side that takes it too far.

      As to admitting to "making the black magic telephone calls to people in the Prince of Wales pub" - what did I say about allusions not being proof? What "people"? Neither Hill nor Baker have stepped forward to say what you're saying. And what do you know - two of Manchester's mates, no less.

      It's your hearsay against the actual outcome of the case. And you're a bloody sockpuppet to boot. What you're providing is not reliable counter-evidence. As you've demonstrated, your word can't be taken on face value, so you'll have to provide something more solid.

      Manchester did receive a punishment - how you interpret that is up to you, but it's pretty clear who the judge held to greater account for what went down. Bradish basically got off, scott-free. Manchester, meanwhile, had to pony up a hefty son and told to leave Bradish's wife alone. It's easy to see who the judge held more responsible in that case. Even so, it still doesn't help your inane "grinning in the galley" counter.

      There's no evidence Manchester received any compo, either. As to hearing the recordings, privately, take note of what I said before about public claims being upheld by publicly available evidence. For all we know, Manchester could've faked the tapes. Spliced 'em up. Your "evidence" is thus redundant. Also, you're not authorised to speak on Manchester's behalf, so talking about making arrangements, yadda yadda, is best come from the man, himself. Not you.

      Delete
  67. Enter your comment...

    ReplyDelete
  68. “David's initial letter was hardly controversial in that regard... he was essentially confirming that all those pub tales and gossip were true. And to top it all, he ended his letter with an appeal for more information/ sightings from the public.”

    You are absolutely right, Redmond. As I have said consistently, the purpose of my latter to the Ham & High was to appeal for information from any readers who might have further information on Highgate Cemetery’s ghost. I stated it in my book “Beyond the Highgate Vampire” and I have made this clear in dozens of filmed interviews and on numerous Internet sites and forums. I think a major problem is, that certain people just don’t read or listen to what I’ve said about this matter. I first began the investigation into the Highgate ‘ghost’ in the summer of 1969 after having already interviewed two independent witnesses who claimed to have seen it. I was in touch with the Ham & High long before my initial letter; which incidentally, this reporter suggested as a good way of obtaining further information from readers.
    As to Mr. Manchester’s insinuation that I wrote or influenced Mr. R. Docherty’s letter, I do not even know who Mr.Docherty is!

    His other frivolous accusation that I influenced Yossel Baker’s letter, is equally telling. Why? Because Mr. Baker frequently drank with Mr. Tony Hill and Mr. Manchester in the Prince of Wales pub in Highgate village and they all knew each other . . . well!

    In fact, when Kev Demant spoke with Yossel Baker to gather information for his book “Plan 9 from Highgate Cemetery” in 1997 he learned that Mr. Baker was not only a friend of Manchester’s and played the electric guitar in Mr. Manchester’s amateur jazz group, but he went to school with him in Holloway Road.

    VERY telling, I think you will agree!

    David Farrant, President, BPOS.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your claims, Mr. Sean Manchester posting here as ‘Friends’ of yourself (I thought your only 2 remaining friends namely ‘Br Keith Maclean and Tony Hill did not have internet access? And Yossell Baker laughed his head off when your name was recalled to him in 1997) are more full of holes than a sinking ship. Which I suppose makes you the captain of one, not an enviable role or position in life.

      An obvious example appeared just this afternoon, regarding your references to imaginary recordings of myself and I quote “It is quite apparent listening to these recordings that Farrant is unaware of the tape-recorder's existence. He is heard to openly conspire with those present to hoax a ghost story to deceive the press and public alike. Hill and Farrant are heard discussing the motive, which was to admit at a later stage that the ghost story had been a hoax in order to demonstrate how gullible people are when it comes to the paranormal. It is patently obvious from these recordings that Farrant treated the paranormal and those who believed in it with contempt.

      When Farrant failed to keep his side of the bargain, having subsequently become addicted to publicity, Hill fell out with him.”

      Are you suggesting that I had some kind of Rothschild-style control over the Ham and High, which prevented such an expose from happening with or without my collaboration? That Tony Hill, even if he WAS audibly recognizable himself on any such recording, would not have taken full advantage not only of my incarceration from 1974 onwards but the negative vibe which was being whipped up about me in the local press, to FORCE such an expose himself? Presumably he would have been in possession of tapes which would have enabled him to do so; and I am sure that yourself aka Peter Lord aka Ruthven Glenarvon aka Simon Majors etc etc in a freelance ‘journalist’ capacity would have been more than happy to help him take advantage of my position and ‘spill the beans’. So why did it never come to pass at the time??!!!

      Simply because the tapes DO NOT EXIST and never did.

      Try again Sean.

      David Farrant, President, BPOS.



      Delete
  69. You haven't said that consistently, David, as has been pointed out. You denied you added the paragraph with the further appeal. Even Gareth was mystified by it, until he saw the copy I posted. Please don't play the FoBSM game of misrepresenting the issue.

    The problem with your behind the scenes story, is that there's little in the way of validating it. You mentioned your book, for instance - well, that was published in 1991 - 21 years after the publication of your letter. Prior that, where's the proof for your extant investigation? Any contemporary mentions? No. Instead, you appeared alongside Manchester while he claimed the presidency of your (supposed) organisation. A bit late in the game to be making claims like that.

    As FoBSM has (rightly) pointed out, your story has also changed considerably from what you initially wrote into the Ham & High, as well as in subsequent media appearances.

    Regarding Baker, yes, as noted, a good chunk of the subsequent letter-writers were known to either you or Manchester. Now, for such a supposedly well-known story, it's very interesting that a good chunk of the replies published were from that small pool of people. That would also suggest that the replies were pretty few in number, too.

    You, too, were an associate of Hill's - as noted, you even lived with him for a while. And speaking of the pub, that's also the same place you knew Manchester from, too. Very small circles here.

    As to Docherty - fair enough, you don't know him. The onus is on FoBSM to prove otherwise. Let's say he hasn't been doing a good job so far.

    ReplyDelete
  70. Oh David, I'm desperate. Please pay attention to my attempts to troll you into engaging me. If you don't engage with me, how can I show off my internet arguing skills? I'm desperately trying to insert myself into the Highgate drama, but no one's giving me a bloody chance.

    ReplyDelete
  71. And speaking of sockpuppets... Someone accusing me of trolling - even when discussing things that've been raised in the discussion - has a link to "troll.me" in their handle, via an account that's been used to create a series of memes on this "Cousin Hoggy" character. Back under your bridge, please.

    ReplyDelete
  72. Oh thank God, someone to fight with at last -- I'm not happy unless I'm arguing on the Internet! It's simply dreadful that David Farrant won't react to any of my prods and jabs. Even when I address him directly, the cad ignores me! And Manchester's no better. He won't respond to me either. You have no idea what it's like to devote your every waking moment to Highgate and have the two principles not even give you the time of day!

    ReplyDelete
  73. You'll be ok, Junior. Keep at 'em! Persistence pays off! In the meantime, keep churning those memes out!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And a little obsession doesn't hurt either! I've been collecting everything David Farrant has ever spoken or written so I can use his own words against him in an internet argument. That is, if he ever answers me. (NB: I don't believe in vampires, but check out my blogs "Did a Wampyr Walk in Highgate" and "Diary of a Vampirologist")

      Delete
    2. A little obsession? Whatever floats your boat, Junior. In the meantime, yes, I don't believe in vampires and I do write Did a Wampyr Walk in Highgate?, but I didn't write "Diary of a Vampirologist". What are you trying to say though, J?

      And how are those memes coming along?

      Delete
    3. Oh, and while we're at it, could you explain why you're pretending to be my son.. and why you take my discussion with David so personally?

      Delete
    4. Oh thank God thank God an internet argument at last! You know I think we'd simply die without the opportunity to argue. And if we actually had a discussion with David that would be dreamy but David isn't answering us at all, so therein lies the rub, Daddio. We troll the web looking for mention of the Highgate Vampire, jump into the comments section and try like the dickens to get ourselves into the mix but no joy. How can we make a name for ourselves in the vampire game if they totally ignore us? Unfair it is.

      Delete
    5. Well Father...if David refuses to argue with us we can argue with each other, I guess that's the next best thing, and it keeps us in practise. (Not as satisfying as asking David the same questions over and over again, but any port in a storm) I'm grateful that you have been trying to school me in the family trade in your spare time. But I'm confused about one technique you have stressed, which is repeatedly bringing up supposedly unanswered questions whilst trying to dazzle David with new challenges and insults. What if he simply refuses to answer?

      Delete
    6. BTW, when is our e-book about Highgate coming out? I don't want people to think we're lazy or prone to making things up.

      Delete
    7. "We"? Speak for yourself, please. It's not "trolling" to discuss matters in context. The content of my posts - even if I'm not always responded to, directly - is not being ignored.

      If David refuses to answer, that's ok. His choice. That doesn't negate the content or context of my posts, however.

      We don't have an e-book coming out. If you can point out where I've insulted David here, feel free to share it. In the meantime, it seems you take my commentary on David's claims - and matters surrounding it - extremely personal, which is kinda weird. That you'd refer to such commentary as "trolling" - even though it's clear you're actually the one trolling me - is even more bizarre.

      Delete
  74. On October 9th 1977 'Bishop' Sean Manchester was shown in a photograph dressed in his Nazi uniform in the Sunday People newspaper, in an article entitled 'We Unmask Phoney Nazis'. Manchester wanted to publicise a so-called 'League of Imperial Fascists', in order to terrify the Jewish community. Manchester also donned Occult/Satanic garb in the 1980s (For the details see David Farrant's book 'David Farrant: Out of the Shadows: An Autobiography Volume II'). All this is mentioned in reader's comments on the Faustian Circle blog, run by an ex-Occult-Fascist turned Christian white magician and spiritualist. If Manchester is a 'Christian Bishop' why does he slander the late Bishop Illytd Thomas, one of the very Christian Bishops who ordained him? And why does Manchester wage a hate campaign against David Farrant using multiple identities on the internet?

    ReplyDelete
  75. Well said anonymous! Whilst the debate on the Highgate Vampire case has been most stimulating we are fast diverting from the original topic of conversation which was Sean Manchester, his occult past and claim to be a genuine Old Catholic Bishop.

    ReplyDelete
  76. Since Bishop Illytd Thomas' death (Rest in Peace) he is no longer here to defend himself, so it is very unfair for Manchester to attack hm with such venom.

    ReplyDelete
  77. I have to agree with that, Redmond. Your latter points are the basic topics: not Highgate Cemetery or ridiculous 'vampires', which some people keep trying to return to. Nobody really cares in the least about descriptions of what sort of 'vampire' it was - or wasn't I have already made my position clear on that over and over. and I have made it clear that I do NOT accept the existence of blood-sucking vampires. So shall we get back to Weeping Cross's points?
    David Farrant, President, BPOS.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, you're one of the people engaged in conversation on it, David.

      Delete
  78. Attention Hogg Sr. You're lying down on the job here, Dad! Farrant gave you a perfect opening ("ridiculous 'vampires', which some people keep trying to return to") to jump in and accuse him of whatever and get a nice big fight going. But not a peep from you. Nothing. Are you feeling OK father?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm ok, Junior. I've just been away. Regarding that comment, David's also discussed the "ridiculous" vampire, too. My commentary hasn't been restricted to it, either. So if you've got a point, just come out and say what it is.

      Delete
  79. "I have made it clear that I do NOT accept the existence of blood-sucking vampires."

    Have you David?

    Perhaps you made it clear when you were mincing round Highgate Cemetery with a cross and stake?
    Perhaps you made it clear when interviewed by Laurence Picethly?
    Perhaps you made it clear by setting up the Highgate Vampire Society?
    Perhaps you made it clear by writing pamphlets and "books" on the subject?
    Perhaps you made it clear by piggy-backing on the success of Sean Manchester's work for decades?

    Or perhaps you are just a hypocrite.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. That ship has already sailed 'Gothic Window' aka Sean Manchester. We are now re-directing the conversation back to it's original starting point: which is discussions concerning your occult past and your claim to be a genuine Bishop of the Old Catholic Church. The attached article was about dodgy clerics like yourself after all! lol

      Delete
    3. Sorry Redmond, I am not Bishop Seán Manchester. I'm not even one of his supporters.
      I just don't like to see Farrant being given an easy ride when he's such a phony.

      Delete
  80. David Farrant has made it quite clear in his book 'Beyond The Highgate Vampire' that he does not believe the so-called 'Highgate Vampire' was a real blood-sucking 'vampire', as claimed by Sean Manchester who would have us all believe he staked it, in his book 'The Highgate Vampire'. David says he believes it was a malignant earth bound entity/spirit/ghost.

    Back on topic - discussion of 'Bishop' Manchester.

    ReplyDelete
  81. "Gothic Window 22", you may not be aware that the Hogg family trade is Farrant-bashing, and we can quite handle this without your amateurish attempts, so kindly bugger off.

    ReplyDelete
  82. For Anthony Hogg, Jr:
    At least the real Anthony Hogg is interesting to read. You sound like a right idiot, Junior.

    For Anonymous:
    Within the jurisdiction of the British Old Catholic Church, Seán Manchester is a bona fide Bishop. FACT!




    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. PS - Bishop Seán Manchester actually holds the Archbishop's credentials but is too modest to use them.

      Delete
    2. Gothic Window 22, I may not be as good as the old man, but I am learning. Following Farrant around the Internet and pestering him about blood sucking vampires is the most important work in the world to the Hogg family. We are producing an e-book on the topic (if dear old Dad would quit stalling and get cracking on it) that will catapult the Hoggs into the limelight that is rightfully ours.

      Delete
    3. Thank you, Mr. Window. Junior seems to think I only reserve my commentary for David. Unfortunately, Junior's got tunnel-vision. His blood boils every time I address David or something he's said. Apparently, it's "trolling" to do so. Never mind that I've discussed Manchester's church and his role here, repeatedly. It's the stuff I say about David's claims that bothers Junior most. He's a strange lad.

      Delete
  83. For Anthony Hogg, Jr:
    At least the real Anthony Hogg is interesting to read. You sound like a right idiot, Junior.

    For Anonymous:
    Within the jurisdiction of the British Old Catholic Church, Seán Manchester is a bona fide Bishop. FACT!

    No. The latter is NOT a fact Sean. The official Old Catholic Church is run (or was run) by Archbishop Glazemaker and he categorically denied you had anything to do with the bona fide Old Catholic Church. Even the late Bishop Thomas saw fit to revoke your supposed ordination in the UK because you had lied to him about your occult past (by not disclosing this) and because he had received a mass of complaints about your most unchristain treatment of your perceived enemies across the Internet He invited you to his home to discuss these but you totally ignored him. This is the reason he laicised you in early 2007.

    David Farrant, President, BPOS

    ReplyDelete
  84. Would the real Anthony Hogg please come back!
    Little Nipper is doing my head in :-)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Gothic Window 22; Must I remind you, my Dad has quite a file on Manchester and is equally adept at pestering Hell out of the bishop with line-by-line arguments that would make your head spin. Not sure where he is at the moment, maybe out back of the petrol station putting some shrimp on the barbie.

      Delete
    2. I see what you mean, Mr. Window... Oh, Junior - hush now.

      Delete
    3. Hello everyone, Della Farrant here, Just to clear somethings up about me, my real name is Anna Hinton, i am not married to David Farrant as you have been led to believe, our wedding was a Wicca wedding called al handfast ceremony, this explains why theree are no records of our marriage, hope this clears rhings up for everyone

      Delete
  85. I'm not Seán Manchester. Illtyd Thomas did not laicise the bishop as he had no authority to do so. Bishop Manchester defrocked Thomas using the ancient "Bell, Book and Candle" routine.

    SO STICK THAT UP YOUR JUMPER FARRANT!

    ReplyDelete
  86. I don't make the rules Sean. You just try to make them up as you go along. The fact remains, you are not accepted by the bone fide Old Catholic Church or even recognised by them in any religious capacity. Now, what about trying to catch up with all those thousands of Council you owe us Taxpayers!???

    David Farrant, President, BPOS

    ReplyDelete
  87. I've paid plenty of tax over the years Farrant. Money from my books is donated to my Church where it helps to fund investigative work as well as provide relief for those at risk from the Dark Occult. I'm a significant net contributor to the treasury - are you?

    ReplyDelete
  88. Well they do say charity begins at home, I suppose - even if you're living in a bungalow!

    David Farrant, BPOS.

    ReplyDelete
  89. It is NOT a bungalow. It is a beautiful, detatched Edwardian house in a prime location.

    And this coming from a man who spent a year living in a coal scuttle, eating cobwebs and drinking cold tea from a chipped cup. How very DARE you!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oi, I can't sleep after looking at Farrant's blog.

      http://davidfarrant.org/TheHumanTouch/full-moon-blues

      That piercing gaze. It's as if he's staring straight into the small, beating hearts of the Hogg family and saying, "I'm watching you!"

      Delete
  90. OK, you asked for it! I've got hold of Dad's Top Secret *Manchester File*. Allow me to quote some devastating research tidbits from it that Sean Manchester supporters will surely find unanswerable!

    "In 1972, Farrant told the press..."

    Oops. Heh heh. Wait a second. I'll try another part.

    "Farrant appeared on an ITV documentary in 1978 where he stated…"

    Ahem. There must be some Manchester stuff in these files. OK, now I found it. Here we go.

    "Regarding Sean Manchester's duel with swords, David Farrant wrote in 2007 that it was…"

    Right. Well, so Dad's files are heavy on Farrant. So what? Nothing wrong with keeping obsessive records of everything the guy you're trolling has ever said. I mean, that's Internet Argument 101. Sheesh.

    ReplyDelete
  91. If the genuine Mr Hogg wanted to come round to the Bishop's retreat house for tea and scones I'm sure the Bishop would consider it. I am not authorised to speak in his stead unfortunately. Junior could play outside on the "Gothic" bouncy castle and help with blowing up the baloons for the upcoming celebration of "The Triumph of the Cross" which will be an invitation only event, after the trouble last year. I'm sure the Bishop doesn't want to see the Dorset Cave Rescue Service called out to evacuate his outside lavatory again. The cistern's never been the same since, apparently.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'll pass along your tea and scones suggestion to Big Daddy - as soon as I find him (I hope he hasn't quaffed the case of Fosters we'd been saving for dinner.) Goes without saying, Hogg Sr.'s attendance would be conditional on Farrant showing up as well. Dad has spoken many times about how chuffed he'd be to witness a reconciliation between Manchester and Farrant, you know. He even has a Judges robe and gavel all picked out and a portable dock for the accused to stand in he bodged together from some old packing crates.

      Delete
    2. Oh and if Manchester's uncomfortable, tell him it's not really a "trial", it's more of an "inquest" Dad was planning. Nothing too elaborate, just a couple of hours, really, where Dad would force you and Farrant to answer questions and then pontificate a little about how he is right and you are wrong (you know Dad) and you are both scum to be condemned by moral Christians such as ourselves. If it helps, we could bring a party tray of finger foods like beans on toast, spicy sausage, that sort of thing.

      Delete
  92. Sorry, no can do. There's no way Farrant would be allowed to come unless it was just a 1-2-1 between him and the Bishop. No cameras, microphones Etc allowed. David's made it clear that he doesn't want the Bishop to exorcise him, which is a shame.

    ReplyDelete
  93. What if my Dad gave the bishop immunity from prosecution, er, I mean the inquest? Would that change things? Farrant would be in the dock to be tried and found guilty. Manchester could even be a witness against Farrant if he wants. No press, no cameras. As long as my Dad gets to judge someone he'll be happy. And he already leans more toward Manchester, being a fellow Christian and all.

    Speaking of Boss Hogg, no one can seem to locate him. I hope he did not go mad after staring at Farrant's latest blog photo all night.

    ReplyDelete
  94. ****BULLETIN**** I finally managed to locate Hogg Sr. He'd been moping around the creek out back of the petrol station (technically it's a billabong, but let's not use that word OK) drinking up our last case of Fosters, as I suspected. Although he was very pissed, we had a long father and son talk, during which he dropped the following bomb on me: I am the spawn of his, um, liaison with someone named Angie, a woman who is allegedly some kind of demon. Dad says he once went on a secret walkabout to England and she cast a spell on him when he got a glimpse of her tarty underwear. This is all so unbelievable I'm not sure what to think anymore.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Junior, while I appreciate you've missed me, you'd best lay off the crackpipe. That's the biggest load of crap you've spouted yet.

      Delete
    2. All right Dad, I see you've finally sobered up, thank God. Time for you to get back onto Farrant's back and try to insert yourself into the conversation. Hoping you'll school me in the Hogg Method of trolling technique.

      NB: I've picked up all your empty Fosters cans and put them in the wheelie bin.

      Delete
    3. Ah. Trolling me by repeatedly accusing me of trolling. Very meta. Give yourself a pat on the back, Junior. Look, I know you want to take the heat off your mate, David, whoeveryouare, but there's no need to take the commentary so personally. If you're trolling me to make a point, it's better you just come out and say it, without the song-and-dance routine. Because you suck.

      Delete
    4. Thanks Dad. We're fighting and that's good. The Hoggs can't live without their daily Internet argument, even if it's with each other! The pressing problem is how to get Farrant's attention. You've tried insults. You've tried baiting. Here's hoping you've got something in the Hogg bag of tricks that will get David to answer you.

      Delete
    5. So... you're not gonna come out and say what's bothering you? Fair enough. Just try not to take what I say to Dave personally, ok? I get it. He's your mate. You want to look out for him. But he's a big boy. He can handle himself. So to speak.

      Delete
    6. Wuzzup Daddio, I'm on your side. It's me, a chip off the old block, remember? The problem is no one is responding to your posts, not Dave, not Manny, not Redmond, not even Chatty Gef. I'm trying to offer encouragement and ideas for you. Have you considered denial? In other words, maybe you can deny that they're ignoring you. Try and convince them they are responding in some way. Claim their responses are to you, not someone else. Worth a try?

      Delete
    7. NB: try Redmond. If you can get an argument going with him, others may join in, and from there you can try to suck Dave into the conflict.

      Delete
    8. Still not going to make your point? Ok. I guess pretending to be my son and trolling this blog entry is much more productive to you. Whatever floats your boat.

      Delete
    9. Cool, thanks Dad for demonstrating the patented Hogg™ Just Keep Repeating The Same Thing technique for me. But I'm worried because nothing you've tried so far has worked in getting a response from Farrant. What if he just doesn't answer you at all...ever? The prospect of no internet arguments with Farrant might put you in a very black mood. It could lead to another drinking binge out by the billabong and more blurted confessions about my, er, your, um well you know.

      Delete
  95. By the way, Sean, as to this ;

    "Gothic Window22 August 2013 18:42

    It is NOT a bungalow. It is a beautiful, detatched Edwardian house in a prime location.

    And this coming from a man who spent a year living in a coal scuttle, eating cobwebs and drinking cold tea from a chipped cup. How very DARE you! . . ."

    I might have been living in a coal cellar, Sean, but at least I was getting laid!

    David Farrant, BPOS

    ReplyDelete
  96. Friends of Bishop Seán Manchester17 August 2013 10:35
    “The address of our private retreat in England was generally unknown up until Easter 2002 at which time it was betrayed by someone privy to it. We now know the identity of that person”

    The bishop does not reveal the identity of the person concerned. As a matter of fact it was myself. He does not seem to have worked out how I did it.
    Gareth J. Medway (posted by David Farrant).

    ReplyDelete
  97. This has been a very strange way of getting the thread back on topic...

    ReplyDelete
  98. Friends of Bishop Seán Manchester17 August 2013 10:35
    “The address of our private retreat in England was generally unknown up until Easter 2002 at which time it was betrayed by someone privy to it. We now know the identity of that person”

    It's not a private retreat...it's a house just like any other...Sean stole the idea of a 'retreat' from a house in Glastonbury Abbey...which in turn,he claims is part of his (non existent) diocese..

    ReplyDelete
  99. I'm more intrigued by the "our" bit - just how many people live in that retreat? To how many people was the letter addressed?

    ReplyDelete
  100. I wouldn't have seriously thought, Jamie, that survivors of 'Satanic Cults' would be helped byspending time in a 'retreat'; its walls strewn with Nazi paraphernala; taped speeches by Oswald Moseley blaring out from a room upstairs; walls lined with swords and guns and fanatical Christian imagery, but without a Christian in sight: would do anything to help tramatic young people desperately trying to escape the clutches of devil worship, only to find themselves to be surrounded by such Satanic imagery within the confines of a tiny house.

    The mind truly boggles! Where is Jesus is this unholy mix, one can only ask??

    David

    ReplyDelete
  101. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  102. Out of the frying pan into the fire without a doubt, and it must be a bit crowded already what with the 'fobsm' all residing there as well :-)

    ReplyDelete
  103. Maybe it's a sweatshop for Manny's cassocks.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hey Dad, while we're waiting to see if someone will argue with you (Could be a long wait though. Just sayin'.) you and me could argue about whether or not a bishop wears a cassock or a robe.

      Delete
    2. Yeah, I know the cassock vs. robe thing is kind of off topic, but it might help you get your Internet Arguing mojo back.

      Delete
  104. Keep it coming, Junior. Get it all out of your system.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Just trying to help a Dad who's lost his way.

      Delete
    2. Let it all out, Junior. Keep it coming...

      Delete
  105. Excellent use of the Hogg JKRTST (Just Keep Repeating The Same Thing) method again, Dad. I really appreciate this opportunity to learn Internet Arguing from a master such as yourself.

    You know I don't want the lack of response from Farrant to get you down. Have you used all your traditional classic gambits? Maybe you could call him a coward if he doesn't answer. Or say that his silence indicates that he agrees with you. But I think you've already tried those, and no joy. Just got an idea: you could try commanding Farrant *not* to answer you! That way when he doesn't answer you, you win!

    ReplyDelete
  106. Trolling me by saying I'm trolling... now trolling me by repeating the same things over and over again and saying it's a technique you've learned from me. Gold. Keep it coming, Junior. :)

    ReplyDelete
  107. Thanks for the props, Dad. I'm still learning from you!

    In order to carry on your legacy, I was thinking I could open my own blogs and Facebook groups. How about...

    "I Know A Wampyr Didn't Walk In Highgate But I Want to Argue About It Anyway"

    or

    "Diary Of The Son Of Someone Who Argues About Vampires On The Internet"

    or

    "We Surely Do Appreciate A Place To Argue About The Highgate Vampire Society"

    (These might be a bit too derivative of yours though)

    ReplyDelete
  108. They're great! What else you got?

    ReplyDelete
  109. Too thrilled for words. This is the father and son relationship I always dreamed we could have.

    ReplyDelete
  110. That's great, Junior. Now be a good boy and fetch me my can. But make it a Vic. No-one here drinks Fosters.

    ReplyDelete
  111. Fascinating thread, all it needs is an affronted comment from Mrs. Florence Mcgurgle.

    Thornavis - who is not a sock puppet I assure you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's a relief, Thornavis! At least you're not another one of my "sons"!

      Delete
    2. Speaking of that particular sockpuppet, much like Manchester's own sockpuppet crew, his intent is to derail blog threads discussing Farrant's claims and such (Manchester's sockpuppets to do the same thing for his claims), so it devolves into a mess and other readers overlook certain contradictions and dubious statements. Very sneaky. And as you can see here, it's worked!

      Delete
  112. Still can't find an argument on the internet? You REALLY need someone to fight with! Ever think of getting married?

    ReplyDelete
  113. I wasn't arguing, Jr. You must be getting pretty desperate.

    Thanks for your suggestion that I get married, but it's a bit hard taking advice from someone who prowls the 'net, pretending to be my son. Oh, and spending ther time generating "Cousin Hoggy" memes. Obsessed much?

    Jr., you've made a sterling effort at derailing the thread, though. But it wasn't enough. Especially as you haven't been able to refute anything I've said about your idol, Dave.

    It amazes me how personally you take what I've said about him (and trying to disguise it with "humour") - which makes me think you're actually a friend of his. You're so narrow-minded about what I say, that you deliberately overlook the stuff I've said about Manny. That's pretty worrying. Especially as it puts you in the same mindset as the Manny sockpuppets you ridicule. Two sides of the same coin.

    ReplyDelete
  114. Of course you're not arguing, Dad ; )


    ReplyDelete
  115. (Oh and those seven points you embedded into your last post....brilliant! I swear to God, Dad, with a technique like that, Farrant would be totally unable to resist answering. If only he weren't ignoring you.)

    ReplyDelete
  116. I wasn't arguing, Jr. Read what I wrote previously. Like I said, you're getting desperate. Rely less on your perception and focus on content. That's my tip to you, Jr.

    It doesn't bother me whether he responds or not - I wasn't speaking to him. So, get a grip, ok? :)

    In the meantime, why don't you tell us what the deal with your troll act is? It's like you're trying to make some kind of point, but you're not very good at articulating it. Come out with it.

    ReplyDelete
  117. Good Lord, this is a depressing thread. Manchester is clearly insane, and Farrant is just sad. Both of them need therapeutic help.

    With a huge dose of burning rubber, and a squeal of tires, let me try to put this thread back on the route of the original article. I realize I am rather late to the party, and it may be that the audience for this comment has long gone home by now, but nonetheless, there are some pertinent things to be said regarding Manchester.

    First of all, he is clearly wearing a biretta with a suit (which, in spite of the comment of his "Friends", is just plain wrong), because he's losing, or has lost, his hair. There appears to be no current or recent picture of Sean Manchester without the inclusion of some form of headgear. The man possesses more than an average share of personal vanity, as the manifold portraits of him littering his sites demonstrate. While he had a fine curly mop in his younger years, the rather thin strands which now hang down from the rims of his purple biretta point to a less than full covering these days. I will be the first to admit that a biretta is a far better choice than a toupee, however it should never be worn with a suit, period.

    This is not the first time Manchester has been guilty of a clerical sartorial solecism. The photographs of his consecration ("in a large neo-Gothic church", no less), show him distributing communion while wearing a miter. Anybody with even the most rudimentary knowledge of Catholic liturgical rubrics would know that this is incorrect. Who was the MC for this august event, I wonder? Clearly someone with neither experience nor knowledge.

    As for Illtyd Thomas, this man was well known in the ecclesiastical underworld in England during the 1980s. It is inconceivable that Sean Manchester was not well informed as to his character and antecedents. Everybody I knew, even those not part of Archbishop Thomas's immediate circle, were fully aware of what sort of man he was. He was charming in his way, but everything he did was touched by the amateur and homespun, even down to his zuchetto, which was fashioned from an old baseball cap. It must have been hard for Manchester, with such highly elevated pretensions, to have had to succumb to consecration from such a figure, but he probably couldn't find anyone else to do it. As it is, Thomas would pretty much consecrate anyone who asked him, so the bar for entry was not particularly high.

    I spoke to Illtyd Thomas on a few occasions by telephone. He told me that Manchester broke off contact with him as soon as the consecration was done, so it seems that Thomas was merely a means to an end, purely to impart the mystical "apostolic succession" which is meaningless in the absence of any genuine ministerial function.

    I remain curious about thing: how has Sean Manchester supported himself all these years? His self-published books can hardly have sold in sufficient quantities to provide him and his current wife with sufficient income to support what appears to be a comfortable lifestyle. He has no congregation, and I cannot see how any of his activities can have been sufficiently profitable to provide an income stream of any size.

    ReplyDelete
  118. Good Lord, what a depressing thought to have Father Raphael (of all people!) sit in judgement on someone he has no first-hand knowledge about.

    Father Raphael declares this person of a different jurisdiction to himself as "insane." I wonder if a Christian would really do such a thing?

    What a Christian most certainly would not do is launch a tirade of personal insults against a fellow human being considered by him to be insane.

    I happen not to agree with Father Raphael whose pettiness is truly staggering in view of his own peccadilloes which I will not embarrass him with.

    FoBSM are fundamentally correct. Outside of liturgical functions a black suit and clerical collar is the usual attire for priests and bishops, and the use of the cassock is at the discretion of the cleric, as is the wearing of a biretta. Given what priests and bishops all too frequently wear these days (for both liturgical and non-liturgical occasions) it is a blessing to witness at least one prelate eschewing trainers and jeans under his vestments for something more appropriate, and I certainly welcome the return of the biretta. If only more would follow his example. The concelebration of Mass following Bishop Manchester's episcopal consecration, however, was not at his discretion, but at the discretion of the three ordaining bishops who imparted their apostolic succession to him. They clearly adhered to their own peculiar ways and if the photographs are examined it will be noted that all bishops at the altar during this concelebration were mitred. Bishop Manchester was not in charge of what was happening, and had he been so, as in his own jurisdiction, things would have been otherwise. For example, he does not follow the novus Ordo Missae.

    Father Raphael might have known Illtyd Thomas and vice versa through their mutual "ecclesiastical underworld," but Bishop Manchester clearly did not, as confirmed in his semi-autobiographical book "The Grail Church" (1995) where it is apparent he learned of Illtyd Thomas through reading a positive article about him in the Barnet Borough Times, 8 February 1990.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Whether Illtyd Thomas was "amateur and homespun" is of no consequence and certainly not a criticism to make of any Christian, no matter how fallen he might be in other respects. As for Bishop Manchester not finding anyone else to consecrate him, while a priest he and his wife were invited to Westminster Cathedral for tea on several occasions and it was on one of these that Father Michael Seed invited the him to seriously consider being ordained into the Roman Catholic Church. The fact that he was married was not an obstacle. Bishop Manchester declined.

      Bishop Manchester broke off contact with Illtyd Thomas for precisely the reasons given at the time. He and his wife visited Illtyd Thomas uninvited only to discover when they entered degenerate images of a homo-erotic nature in the reception room. A calendar bearing naked photographs of men was apparently on display in the room. Illtyd Thomas excused these as belonging to someone who was temporarily staying with him. Thomas had always protested his objection to homosexuality in the presence of Bishop Manchester and the latter's accompanying entourage. There are several witnesses to Thomas' description of all homosexual acts being mortally sinful. After the visit, Bishop Manchester felt instinctively that Thomas was being dishonest. He made enquiries and had his worst suspicions confirmed. Much later he received from the Ecclesiastical Law Society overwhelming evidence, indeed proof, about the man and was left no choice but to excommunicate him.

      I have to wonder why Father Raphael would raise the private means of a man who is a complete stranger to him and in whom he has no real interest beyond publishing gross insult? What in heaven's name have such matters got to do with Father Raphael? Is he driven by envy or what?

      Moreover, how does Father Raphael know that this bishop has "elevated pretensions" and "no congregation"? Has he met him, had any form of communication with him, or spoken to those who have? I think with a reasonable amount of certainty it is safe to say he has not.

      Finally, what is Father Raphael of a completely different jurisdiction doing launching a personal and vitriolic attack on a Christian bishop?

      Delete
    2. Meanwhile, I have to wonder where you'd get such information from, Gabriel, considering that no such thing is mentioned about Thomas until *after* he laicised Manchester. Convenient, isn't it. It's somewhat ironic you chastise what Raphael has said, by making negative aspersions about him, too. The same type you criticise.

      What Raphael has said isn't surprising in the least, especially considering Manchester's "autocephalous" status. And no wonder, too, since the man you defend certainly does not conduct himself as a true bishop would. One only need read through his plagiarised and edited church history, his constant theft of other peoples' materials, etc. to see that. It's clear Manchester was far more interested in obtaining a title (after all, he previously paraded himself as "Lord Manchester" on the assumption that he's descended from Lord Byron by way of a tryst with a serving maid), than any serious interest in the religion. It's no surprise he went through non-mainstream channels to do so, either.

      Raphael makes another fair point on Manchester's income, which certainly isn't supplemented by his books: after all, he's still shilling the 1991 edition of "The Highgate Vampire." And the book was self-published, as are his others. Of course, "The Highgate Vampire" makes clear the monies received will be going to the Church of the Holy Grail...which, of course, he happens to be the autocephalous head of.

      Delete
  119. Wrong, wrong, wrong.

    The biretta is worn with the cassock, never without it. Find me a picture of any other cleric, anywhere in the world, wearing a biretta with a suit and I'll eat my...biretta.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wrong, wrong, wrong.

      This is the pedantry of the pedagogue and might have once applied within the Roman Catholic Church prior to the reforms of Vatican II.

      Nowadays you are fortunate indeed if you were to find a Roman Catholic priest in a black suit with a clerical collar, much less a biretta.

      Also, bear in mind that Bishop Manchester is not Roman Catholic, albeit more traditional than a great many present-day Roman clergy. He is an autocephalous English Catholic and what he chooses to wear is entirely his business.

      Today is the feast of St Matthew the Apostle. Appropriately enough, St Matthew 7: 1 records:

      “Do not judge so that you will not be judged.”

      Delete
  120. Good grief - I've never read such a load of bull. Do you people do anything outside this strange world of pseudo-churches? Mad!

    ReplyDelete
  121. "...qualitative impairment in social interaction, by stereotyped and restricted patterns of behaviour, activities and interests; and by an intense preoccupation with a narrow subject, plus one-sided verbosity..."

    The above attack on Hogg, along with the many others from Sean Manchester, against Hogg and many others here and elsewhere, clearly refer back to Manchester himself, who suffers from monumentally un-selfaware psychological transference.

    ReplyDelete
  122. That is the head of his own church, and where is it and its services?

    ReplyDelete