Thursday 19 April 2012

An Official Statement (and a warning).



The Farrant's have now released a statement concerning both BSM's and one 'Arminius Vámbéry's' unfounded and untrue allegations. It has the full endorsement of the Jacob's. I would like to add that David and Della on behalf of both Christine and Jacob and themselves would respectfully request that debate on this subject is discontinued so as not to encourage the libellous remarks of the perpetrator; which are causing great offence to his intended victims. With this in mind I shall be moderating posts to this blog to avoid any more unpleasantness. So would you all please ensure that your contributions remain relevant to the Highgate case and refer only to those directly involved. 

Official Statement by David and Della Farrant regarding libellous statements about the identities of Christine Moloney and Della Farrant.


In recent months a fabricated claim has been circulated on the Internet concerning the marriage in Normandy last November between Christine Moloney and Isaac Ben Jacob.
This claim has been made by a particular person posting under his usual aliases ‘Steatoda Nobilis’ and ‘Arminius Vambery’.
Whilst this was and remains a legitimate marriage, the person in question has been persistently maintaining that Christine herself is, in reality, my wife Della Farrant. To this end, this claimant has also published a series of photographs of Christine and Isaac which he obtained in an underhand manner from the Internet. He has reproduced these without their permission and these pictures remain their copyright and personal intellectual property.
This individual has also reproduced photographs of the real Della and myself, without permission, which remain our copyright and personal intellectual property. By the use of these photographs, including captioning pictures of Christine Moloney as Della Farrant and vice versa, which is erroneous and libellous, he has also attempted to convey that Della and Christine are the same person. They are not. May we also stress that at no time has Christine ever posed for photographs pretending to be Della.
I should like to state unequivocally that this highly defamatory allegation is unfounded, malicious and totally untrue. Neither Della nor myself have ever stated or implied that Christine Moloney is Della, either before or since her official marriage, and the person repeating this false allegation is perpetrating a serious libel against Christine and her husband Isaac, and against ourselves. We would both like to apologise sincerely to Christine and her husband for all distress and embarrassment this false statement has caused them.
We would request that the person posting these statements and photographs online remove them with immediate effect, and desist from further libellous remarks to avoid the need for further action to be taken.
This request is endorsed by both Christine Moloney and Isaac Ben Jacob.
Signed by David Farrant and Della Farrant, April 18, 2012, to be circulated to all appropriate parties and reproduced online including Facebook where appropriate with the full consent of all parties hereby given.

35 comments:

  1. As for David Farrant getting all morally self-righteous about one of my blogs because of images he says are not mine, allow me to remind him that there is barely a booklet self-published by him which does not contain images legally owned exclusively by Seán Manchester. Even several of the covers of his hate pamphlets aimed at maligning Seán Manchester have photographs on them whose sole copyright is owned by Seán Manchester.

    So for Farrant it is not a case of what is good for the goose is good for the gander. He resorts to "official warnings" when there is nothing official about them. It is just Farrant up to his usual tricks again.

    And before Anthony Hogg climbs aboard his moral high horse with "two wrongs do not make a right," I would remind him that he has willfully stolen copyright protected images and used them on his blogs. For example, the one of Farrant at night in Highgate Cemetery from early 1970, where he is holding a top hat in his hand and has been made to look like a white-faced ghost. That, among others, was reproduced without consent by Hogg.

    So before we hear any more nonsense about image pilfering, let's have a level playing field.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 'As for David Farrant getting all morally self-righteous about one of my blogs because of images he says are not mine . . . '

      The images in question were of an innocent party you've cyberstalked, as well as her husband's. Context, Arminius.

      '. . . allow me to remind him that there is barely a booklet self-published by him which does not contain images legally owned exclusively by Seán Manchester'

      If it's as much of a big deal as you're making it to be, Manchester has legal avenues to pursue. Considering the pamphlets were published as far back as 1991, that he hasn't decided to pursue a legal avenue means it's not your 'job' to concern yourself with this. Leave it to him.

      'He resorts to "official warnings" when there is nothing official about them. It is just Farrant up to his usual tricks again.'

      The Farrants were disassociating the identity with which you've ascribed his wife, Della, with someone else on his Facebook page and her husband. You provided no reliable - or decent - evidence for your initial claim. No 'tricks' here.

      'And before Anthony Hogg climbs aboard his moral high horse with "two wrongs do not make a right," I would remind him that he has willfully stolen copyright protected images and used them on his blogs.'

      What you said is the perfect example of two wrongs making a right. It doesn't. As to 'stealing' copyrighted images...

      'For example, the one of Farrant at night in Highgate Cemetery from early 1970, where he is holding a top hat in his hand and has been made to look like a white-faced ghost. That, among others, was reproduced without consent by Hogg.'

      Then you should familiarise yourself with 'Fair Use' and note that I linked to the source. Another image, which I'd taken from the VRS website was DCMAed and I removed said image. If these are the best examples you can give, clearly you don't understand the concept of 'level playing field'.

      Delete
  2. You say that there was nothing official about the Farrant's legal notice yet both you and BSM have (to an extent) have abided by it's request! As for "image pilfering" both you and BSM have been consistently guilty of this charge: personal photographs of David, his friends and loved ones; as well as B.P.O.S. copyrighted material regularly show up on many of the pro-Manchester blogs. We are as far away from a "level playing field" as you can get right now. But it goes much further than that - BSM and his 'supporters' have been caught on countless occasions plagiarizing other people's material... the British National Party (BNP) being one notable example! Still it is Manchester that is handing out the DCMA's. Don Ecker himself was hit by one for having the temerity to post 'The Sunday People's' photograph of the 'Commander!' An individual that Manchester has consistently denied was him by the way! Still he did orchestrate the Phony Nazi scam which in the process frightened and upset Borehamwood's Jewish community but let's not go there eh? Now you are requesting that Anthony remove an image of David Farrant dressed up as a cemetery ghost. We know that BSM uses this image as 'evidence' that David Farrant hoaxed his story yet you are implying that the photographer was BSM himself! Why else would it be his copyright? So if what you say is true, then just what are the implications of this further revelation?

    ReplyDelete
  3. When has a "warning" been a "request"? I offered to remove all references if the cause of them being there in the first place was also deleted. Anthony Hogg calls this "blackmail" which is a bizarre accusation to level when I was doing a great deal more than those issuing empty threats. I actually chose to remove certain references only because I was requested to do so by Seán Manchester. The truth on is not altered by threats and is already known by those who matter. I could, of course, reinstate the missing parts of the puzzle whenever I want, but the essential information is now out there.

    David Farrant has been infringing copyright protected images owned exclusively by Seán Manchester for over twenty years. Manys appear in his self-published pamphlets and booklets which contents Farrant has the audacity to claim as his own when many of the images used have been stolen.

    The reference to the BNP is quite silly. A sentence similar to what might have appeared on a BNP site is generally used by a number of people who use its information (a common occurrence on the internet) and you call this "plagiarism"? How desperate does anyone have to get to make such claims?

    The photograph of "The Commander" is Seán Manchester's exclusive copyright. The Sunday Mirror infringed it and had to pay him compensation. The legal copyright remains solely Seán Manchester's. He was the photographer who took the picture. He did not "orchestrate" anything. That was Frank Thorne's spoiler when Seán Manchester would not collude with him. Thorne contacted Farrant and the phoney "Phoney Nazi" story was born. Borehamwood's Jewish community had every right to be frightened. A nearby synagogue was fire-bombed around the time when all this was going on. The Nazi cell of which Seán Manchester spoke in his original series of articles for the Times group did exist. Thorne and Farrant thwarted the full story from being revealed.

    I did not say I was asking for the "ghost hoax" picture of Farrant from early 1970 to be removed (otherwise I would have had it removed by Google). What I was saying is that Hogg cannot complain of what he himself does. The "ghost hoax" photograph was taken by Tony Hill who decades later signed over all these pictures taken of Farrant at Highgate Cemetery to Seán Manchester to use as he saw fit. Seán Manchester archived them and used some in The Vampire Hunter's Handbook and The Highgate Vampire, books which Anthony Hogg now possesses only because his friend Barbara Green recently sent them to him, along with others on the same topic, free of charge.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 'When has a "warning" been a "request"? I offered to remove all references if the cause of them being there in the first place was also deleted.'

      The 'cause' was comments made by Della. As a counter, you falsely attributed her 'real' identity and stole pictures from the person's website. Adding blackmail to cyberstalking, then blaming someone else for your actions does not get you off the hook. Even worse if Manchester did, indeed, 'endorse' your blackmail as you've alleged.

      If you intended it as a 'defence', note Manchester advises against such actions, which shows how much you actually respect his say on things.

      'Anthony Hogg calls this "blackmail" which is a bizarre accusation to level when I was doing a great deal more than those issuing empty threats.'

      Bizarre? Not at all. Telling someone they must remove their critical comments or else you'll reinstate the pictures you've stolen from someone else's Facebook and publicly identifying 'her' (with false attribution, no less) is blackmail. Coming from someone who's stolen an identity, themselves, no less.

      'I actually chose to remove certain references only because I was requested to do so by Seán Manchester. The truth on is not altered by threats and is already known by those who matter. I could, of course, reinstate the missing parts of the puzzle whenever I want, but the essential information is now out there.'

      Which makes Manchester's 'endorsement' of your initial statement even more bizarre. One could conclude he backed down, as you did, when you both realised the seriousness of what you'd done and were (rightly) chastised for it. Note, Manchester, too, has removed references to Della's falsely attributed identity via yourself.

      'David Farrant has been infringing copyright protected images owned exclusively by Seán Manchester for over twenty years'

      David is not Della. Attacking her, then rerouting to David's actions, makes no sense. As I've said before, if the copyright theft was truly an issue to Manchester, he's got legal avenues he can pursue. He hasn't.

      However, if he did, he'd be an odious hypocrite, seeing as so many of his writings (and pictures) are cribbed from elsewhere.

      'The reference to the BNP is quite silly. A sentence similar to what might have appeared on a BNP site is generally used by a number of people who use its information (a common occurrence on the internet) and you call this "plagiarism"? How desperate does anyone have to get to make such claims?'

      You're clearly not aware of the extent his blog entry was plagiarised from there. Also, it not only indicates that he has fascist views, but also represents a snippet of his plagiaristic habits. The BNP thing was only one example. More here: http://dawwih.blogspot.com.au/search/label/Plagiarism

      It also reveals Manchester's harping on about 'copyright violation' - as you've been doing - is grossly hypocritical, especially if you're intending it as an attack or criticism.

      Delete
    2. 'The photograph of "The Commander" is Seán Manchester's exclusive copyright. The Sunday Mirror infringed it and had to pay him compensation.'

      Prove it.

      'The legal copyright remains solely Seán Manchester's. He was the photographer who took the picture.'

      The greater implication is that the 'Commander' is actually Manchester, himself. If he did, indeed, take the picture, he must've set the camera on a timer.

      'That was Frank Thorne's spoiler when Seán Manchester would not collude with him.'

      Manchester's initial article for the Borehamwood Post was supposed to 'expose' a fascist cell. Instead, it's a picture of him in Nazi gear and dragging John Pope along for the ride. Thorne isn't to blame for Manchester's 'set-up'.

      'Thorne contacted Farrant and the phoney "Phoney Nazi" story was born.'

      Once again, you've deliberately omitted context. Farrant was contacted, alright: to identity the 'Commander' in the photograph. That's all we know for sure. With or without Farrant, Manchester's clearly recognisable in the 'unmasked' photo. However, you're implying he was involved to a greater extent. Unfortunately for your allusions, they aren't backed with solid evidence.

      'A nearby synagogue was fire-bombed around the time when all this was going on.'

      Which could also mean Manchester's 'expose' was actually piggybacking off existing crimes, tensions and sentiments.

      'The Nazi cell of which Seán Manchester spoke in his original series of articles for the Times group did exist.'

      Prove it.

      'Thorne and Farrant thwarted the full story from being revealed.'

      Not necessarily. If Manchester had finished his expose, which would be the implication, seeing as he'd 'exposed' the cell in the first place, the remainder of the story could've been exposed, too. Especially if Manchester was paid compensation - as you claim - for use of the image.

      'I did not say I was asking for the "ghost hoax" picture of Farrant from early 1970 to be removed (otherwise I would have had it removed by Google).'

      You? If Manchester holds the image's copyright, then he'd be the man to do that. If you're saying you would, you're inferring you're Manchester, himself. Freudian slip.

      'What I was saying is that Hogg cannot complain of what he himself does.'

      I can, because Manchester is a litigious man. Yet, Manchester frequently induldges in copyright violation, himself. Therefore, it's not that he holds a moral compunction against it, it's not just that he's merely protecting his 'property', it's that he thinks 'it's ok for me, but not for them!'

      On top of that, his litigious moves are obviously intended to silence criticism...which is pretty telling in itself. That's hypocritical, and it's the hypocrisy of his actions that I expose.

      Delete
    3. "One could conclude he backed down, as you did, when you both realised the seriousness of what you'd done and were (rightly) chastised for it."

      All you are doing, Anthony, is making matters worse because the sort of provocative statements you publish coud trigger my unexpurgated blog appearing. It was out of courtesy to Seán Manchester that I edited certain elements. He feels that to dwell on the identity of "Della" is an unnecessary distraction. He is also acquainted via the internet with people who are acquainted with "Della" and her husband whom I originally identified on my blog. That is what lay behind my decision.

      Meanwhile, the person you label as innocent ("Della") retains all the hateful blogs she has made about Seán Manchester.

      You allege: "You're clearly not aware of the extent his blog entry was plagiarised from there. Also, it not only indicates that he has fascist views, but also represents a snippet of his plagiaristic habits."

      So, let's know exactly what it is he said that can also be found on a BNP website. What "view" has Seán Manchester expressed which, according to you, is a "fascist view"?

      I don't need to "prove" that the photograph is Seán Manchester's exclusive copyright. It has been proven to the satisfaction of The Press Council, and subsequent legal claims.

      "Farrant was contacted, alright: to identity the 'Commander' in the photograph. That's all we know for sure."

      No it's not, and what you have said is only Farrant's version.

      Here's what really happened:

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

      The synangogue outrages took place after the articles had appeared.

      "You? If Manchester holds the image's copyright, then he'd be the man to do that. If you're saying you would, you're inferring you're Manchester, himself. Freudian slip."

      You do not have to be the copyright owner, but you do have to identify the copyright owner and make a legally binding statement. I had permission to use the image from the lawful copyright holder. Hence I could make a legal claim on his behalf; though I have not done so. Did you have permission to us the image of Farrant going about his ghost hoax, Anthony? Did you hell!

      "His litigious moves are obviously intended to silence criticism."

      No, Anthony, they are merely someone reclaiming what is his in the first place. You are no different to a burglar entering his home and stealing his property. I had permission to borrow his property. You did not. I took Seán Manchester's advice on the "Della" pictures because they are not my property, and I it was wrong of me to use them.

      However, neither are the images of Shakira (the pop-singer) "Della's" property, but she used them all the same and falsely claimed they were photographs of herself for over a year before finally admitting they were actually Shakira.

      "Della" is not the innocent person you make her out to be, Anthony. She and Farrant are as thick as thieves in the hate campaign against Seán Manchester, and you know it!

      Delete
    4. 'All you are doing, Anthony, is making matters worse because the sort of provocative statements you publish coud trigger my unexpurgated blog appearing.'

      First blackmail, now this. I don't appreciate threats. Second, blaming your actions for what I say here does not absolve you of personal responsibility. Grow up.

      'It was out of courtesy to Seán Manchester that I edited certain elements. He feels that to dwell on the identity of "Della" is an unnecessary distraction.'

      I don't buy that, because he also endorsed your blackmail. At least, you claimed he did.

      'He is also acquainted via the internet with people who are acquainted with "Della" and her husband whom I originally identified on my blog.'

      Doubtful, or he would've gotten her identity right, rather than carry-over your false claims.

      'Meanwhile, the person you label as innocent ("Della") retains all the hateful blogs she has made about Seán Manchester.'

      So she writes snarky things about Manchester. Big deal. You've got a whole blog devoted to her. Get some perspective. If what she says bothers you so much, respect Manchester's say on such matters: ignore and/or pray for her.

      'So, let's know exactly what it is he said that can also be found on a BNP website. What "view" has Seán Manchester expressed which, according to you, is a "fascist view"?'

      Here you go: http://dawwih.blogspot.com.au/2010/02/manchester-vs-google.html As to 'fascist views', I said 'Also, it not only indicates that he has fascist views'. Would you not regard the BNP as a fascist group? Also, Manchester clearly has a hang-up on the Nazis, as Kev Chesham's exposed (see: Nazi room pictures).

      'I don't need to "prove" that the photograph is Seán Manchester's exclusive copyright. It has been proven to the satisfaction of The Press Council, and subsequent legal claims.'

      If you're making counter-claims, then yes, you do, especially as you've shown that your word, alone, isn't good enough. Evidence, please.

      'No it's not, and what you have said is only Farrant's version.'

      It's a version they've both acknowledged. As to what 'really' happened, that's speculative. For instance, Manchester's mate, Dennis Crawford, states that Thorne's article was 'based exclusively on that newspaper reporter's collaboration with David Farrant'...and then provides no evidence for the claim. It's simply his 'word'.

      Indeed, the only evidence of Farrant's 'collusion' is the statement reproduced:

      I received a 'phone call from Trevor Aspenal of the Sunday People who enquired about my relationship with Seán Manchester and the British Occult Society. I told him there was no change and that we were still strongly opposed to each other. I then spoke to Frank Thorne of the same newspaper who asked me if I could identify Seán Manchester in a picture. I told him that I would be able to. He then arranged for me to attend the Sunday People's offices where I was shown a photograph of someone in a Nazi uniform. He then showed me a number of other photographs of men and women in Nazi uniforms. I identified one of the men as John Pope. I agreed with Frank Thorne that the original picture shown to me could have been Seán Manchester.

      Like I said, it's the only evidence we know 'for sure'. Presuming, of course, that even that statement's accurate.

      Delete
    5. 'The synangogue outrages took place after the articles had appeared.'

      As I said, it 'could also mean Manchester's "expose" was actually piggybacking off existing crimes, tensions and sentiments.' There's no direct correlation. Nor does it absolve Manchester of pretending to be the 'Commander'.

      'You do not have to be the copyright owner, but you do have to identify the copyright owner and make a legally binding statement.'

      Fair enough. But seeing as you've made no mention of being inclined to report Manchester for his frequent copyright violations - seeing as you find such things so objectionable - I can only conclude you'd only be acting on malicious intent.

      'I had permission to use the image from the lawful copyright holder. Hence I could make a legal claim on his behalf; though I have not done so.'

      You haven't disclosed any such thing on your blog. So, that's debatable. Why you'd even consider it, though, seeing as your other blog - 'In the shadow of the Highgate vampire' - was plagiarised from Manchester's 'Aftermath of the Highgate vampire' after it was shut down by Clearblogs, remains a mystery.

      'No, Anthony, they are merely someone reclaiming what is his in the first place.'

      Yet he has no objection to stealing other people's work. As I said before: he's a hypocrite.

      'You are no different to a burglar entering his home and stealing his property.'

      That is an incredibly daft analogy. And by your logic, that makes Bishop Manchester a burglar, too.

      'I had permission to borrow his property. You did not. I took Seán Manchester's advice on the "Della" pictures because they are not my property, and I it was wrong of me to use them.'

      Again, this permission has not being disclosed, so it's doubtful. You can't speak on his behalf, as he's said he allows no one to do that. If Manchester, himself, confirms it, I'll believe you.

      I'm also glad you can admit to the wrongness of your actions, re: the Della blog, at least. Good show.

      'However, neither are the images of Shakira (the pop-singer) "Della's" property, but she used them all the same and falsely claimed they were photographs of herself for over a year before finally admitting they were actually Shakira.'

      Sure, that was wrong of her, too. I'm not excusing it.

      '"Della" is not the innocent person you make her out to be, Anthony. She and Farrant are as thick as thieves in the hate campaign against Seán Manchester, and you know it!'

      I freely admit that Della's critical of Manchester and that her writings can veer into the nasty. I'd be a fool to deny it. But, as I said before, that's not a justification for attempting to publicly expose her private details; especially as you targeted the wrong persons, in the process. No need to stoop that low.

      Delete
  4. One hopes that now a blog has come out ,devoted to revealing the truth,that the truth WILL be revealed.Too much hypocrisy and posing has gone on recently,by the loopy cleric,and also the equally loony vampire-why cant they just tell the truth?

    ReplyDelete
  5. There's too much at stake, that's why, demonflyonthewall. Remember, they generate publicity and revenue from the case. To admit to the shadier aspects would expose the holes in their accounts.

    If you're inferring I'm the 'equally loony vampire', what have I said or done to deserve that title?

    ReplyDelete
  6. I am still waiting to learn from Anthony Hogg what "view" Seán Manchester has allegedly expressed which, according to Hogg, is a "fascist view" ...


    ... I might have a long wait!

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anthony Hogg thinks he might be the "equally loony vampire" which underlines his inflated sense of importance when it comes to matters concerning the Highgate Vampire case and those associated with it for whatever reason.

    No, Anthony, you are not the "vampire," much as you would like to believe otherwise (in your preposterous vampire mask that never seems to come off).

    The rest of us realised straight away that DFOTW is referring to Farrant.

    For all your bandwagoneering, Anthony, you simply do not register with the rest of the world as having anything to do with the Highgate Vampire case other than stalking those connected to it by the media.

    ReplyDelete
  8. And still I am waiting to discover what "view" Seán Manchester has allegedly expressed which, according to Anthony Hogg, is a "fascist view."

    This is a prime example of Hogg making a personal attack without a shred of evidence. It is based on nothing other than Hogg's very personal prejudice against Seán Manchester.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ok, then. Allegedly fascist views. For more, read: http://kevchesham.blogspot.com.au/p/kevin-chesham-autobiography-first.html

      No one 'owns' the Highgate vampire case, Arminius. Anyone's free to write about it, including myself. It's a public matter, courtesy of the publicity sought by Manchester and Farrant. If I don't 'register' with it, try telling that to Manchester and the FoBSM who've devoted a decent amount of space to writing about me.

      If it's a 'prime example' of me 'making a personal attack without a shred of evidence', it's the only example you've given, despite your frequent attacks on myself. That tells me a lot of what I say holds up to scrutiny. Cheers.

      As to the mask not coming off, that's for privacy purposes. As I've explained before. You've yet to clarify my supposed 'stalking', which is rich coming from a) a stalker like yourself, b) someone who pilfered their name from a real man, and their profile picture from Wikipedia's article on the real Vambrey. Your blatant hypocrisy is only making you look silly.

      Lastly, what exactly is your alignment to the case, seeing as you're quick to judge others, like myself, who write about it? Apart from allusions to Manchester - whose blog you plagiarised - you're yet to disclose anything, yourself. Were you personally involved in investigating the case?

      Delete
  9. "I said 'Also, it not only indicates that he has fascist views'. Would you not regard the BNP as a fascist group? Also, Manchester clearly has a hang-up on the Nazis, as Kev Chesham's exposed."

    Whether or not I regard the BNP as a "fascist group" (it is, of course, a legitimate political party with two elected MEPs) is irrelevant because Seán Manchester is not a member or supporter of that party. Kevin Chesham whom you rely on for your evidence against Seán Manchester is a BNP member. And while I have never known Seán Manchester to have a "hang-up on the Nazis," I am very aware that Kevin Chesham does have such a hang-up, and it is Chesham you cite for your "evidence" of Seán Manchester's so-called "fascist views."

    Pathetic!

    "Ok, then. Allegedly fascist views. For more, read: http://kevchesham.blogspot.com."

    All you have done, Anthony, is link to a blog where Seán Manchester is attacked by Kevin Chesham who worships the Third Reich and supports the BNP.

    You love to link to anything on the internet that maliciously attacks Seán Manchester, but you never give credit for Seán Manchester's responses, eg that he has spent a lifetime actively supporting various peace movements.

    Here is Seán Manchester's rebuttal to the lies published by Kevin Chesham:

    http://kevin-chesham.blogspot.co.uk/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 'Whether or not I regard the BNP as a "fascist group" (it is, of course, a legitimate political party with two elected MEPs) is irrelevant because Seán Manchester is not a member or supporter of that party.'

      His English Society certainly apes their nationalistic bent, and his pilfering material from their blog, doesn't help. I think it is, relevant whether or not you think they're fascist, because Manchester clearly sympathises with their cause. So, do you think they're fascist?

      'Kevin Chesham whom you rely on for your evidence against Seán Manchester is a BNP member.'

      Prove it.

      'And while I have never known Seán Manchester to have a "hang-up on the Nazis,"...'

      Then you must not have seen the pictures featured in Kev's blog entry. Look again.

      'I am very aware that Kevin Chesham does have such a hang-up, and it is Chesham you cite for your "evidence" of Seán Manchester's so-called "fascist views."'

      Yes. If Chesham, is, indeed, a fascist - that doesn't preclude Manchester from being one. Indeed, it could've been something they bonded over. In terms of evidence, take a look at the pics again.

      'All you have done, Anthony, is link to a blog where Seán Manchester is attacked by Kevin Chesham who worships the Third Reich and supports the BNP.'

      Prove it.

      'You love to link to anything on the internet that maliciously attacks Seán Manchester, but you never give credit for Seán Manchester's responses, eg that he has spent a lifetime actively supporting various peace movements.'

      Not true. I link to Manchester's material, too. I also give them credit. Now, you're starting to imagine things...

      'Here is Seán Manchester's rebuttal to the lies published by Kevin Chesham'

      You're refuting anecdotal evidence with anecdotal evidence, yet you refer to Kev's claims as 'lies'. Why?

      Delete
  10. "Try telling that to Manchester and the FoBSM who've devoted a decent amount of space to writing about me."

    The FoBSM have written just one page on their blog about you plus their refuting the many false allegations when you interviewed via the internet Farrant's ex-girlfriend using your familiar leading question technique.

    Seán Manchester has only ever written one short paragraph about you on his rebuttal (concerning Kevin Chesham) blog as a consequence of you disseminating on the internet the latter's odious allegations plus the link, discussing at length Chesham's many deceits and fabrications. This could quite easily have serious consequences because of the violent nature of the ANL/UAF (and such like) who are clearly being incited by Chesham to take action against Seán Manchester, his wife and anyone else who might be around.

    Once again you employ incredibly tainted and extremely biased "evidence" against Seán Manchester where Kevin Chesham has colluded with David Farrant.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 'The FoBSM have written just one page on their blog about you plus their refuting the many false allegations when you interviewed via the internet Farrant's ex-girlfriend using your familiar leading question technique.'

      Check the link again. Also, what was 'leading' about my questions?

      'Seán Manchester has only ever written one short paragraph about you on his rebuttal (concerning Kevin Chesham) blog as a consequence of you disseminating on the internet the latter's odious allegations plus the link, discussing at length Chesham's many deceits and fabrications.'

      It's longer than a paragraph. He's also written more about me than you think, including speculating - along with hostile commenters - about my sexuality, because I confronted him with the aforementioned BNP blog pilfering. That he refused to own up to it, and maligned me, instead, says a lot about his character.

      'This could quite easily have serious consequences because of the violent nature of the ANL/UAF (and such like) who are clearly being incited by Chesham to take action against Seán Manchester, his wife and anyone else who might be around.'

      And yet, they've done...nothing. Manchester's still kicking. Interestingly, Kev also makes similar claims about Manchester, re: inciting.

      'Once again you employ incredibly tainted and extremely biased "evidence" against Seán Manchester where Kevin Chesham has colluded with David Farrant.'

      The same could be said about posting Manchester's blog as a rebuttal...and Manchester's blog, itself. By your logic, they're equally guilty and have effectively endangered each other over a fallen friendship.

      Delete
  11. When I asked what "view" has Seán Manchester expressed which, according to you, is a "fascist view" YOU COULD NOT QUOTE ANYTHING said by Seán Manchester. And the reason is that he has never expressed a fascist view.

    So what do you do? You don't actually quote anything. You eventually link to Kevin Chesham's hate blog by way of an answer.

    What's on Chesham's hate blog?

    Unsubstantiated claims that largely originate with David Farrant!

    For example, the unfounded allegation that Seán Manchester was a member of the NF (at a time when he was making public statements against the NF).

    Where did Chesham get this falsehood? David Farrant, of course. Who else?

    So, when invited to back up your statement, Anthony, ONCE AGAIN YOUR "EVIDENCE" AMOUNTS TO NO MORE THAN FALSEHOOD ORIGINATING WITH FARRANT AND A FARRANT LACKEY BY THE NAME OF KEVIN CHESHAM.

    This is just further proof, if it was ever needed, of your bias - indeed open prejudice - against Seán Manchester.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 'When I asked what "view" has Seán Manchester expressed which, according to you, is a "fascist view" YOU COULD NOT QUOTE ANYTHING said by Seán Manchester. And the reason is that he has never expressed a fascist view.'

      Yes, I posted a link to Kev's blog. You've seen no problem in linking to Manchester's counter-blog as a 'rebuttal'. What's the issue?

      'Unsubstantiated claims that largely originate with David Farrant!'

      Farrant didn't take pics of Manchester's Nazi room, nor has he gone into detail about Manchester's (alleged) swimming pool antics.

      'For example, the unfounded allegation that Seán Manchester was a member of the NF (at a time when he was making public statements against the NF).'

      At the time? Manchester doesn't actually cite his anti-NF letter, which I found interesting. If he could, that'd go a long way.

      'So, when invited to back up your statement, Anthony, ONCE AGAIN YOUR "EVIDENCE" AMOUNTS TO NO MORE THAN FALSEHOOD ORIGINATING WITH FARRANT AND A FARRANT LACKEY BY THE NAME OF KEVIN CHESHAM.'

      And your counter, posting Manchester's blog, reverts to a biased source, too. What's your point?

      'This is just further proof, if it was ever needed, of your bias - indeed open prejudice - against Seán Manchester.'

      No, it means I find Kev's claims plausible. Manchester's 'case' is plausible, too. But if they're both right, that means we're dealing with two Nazi-lovers, instead of one.

      Delete
  12. "What's the issue?"

    The issue is you publicly stating that Seán Manchester holds "fascist views" when he does not. You have amply demonstrated your inability to attribute a single word to him which could be considered a "fascist."

    Pictures of WWII militaria, a small part of a much larger collection in photographed in 2007, is not evidence of someone holding "fascist views." It is evidence of someone dealing in and collecting militaria. And, yes, that does include framed photographs and other miscellany as well as swords and medals. All of it comes under militaria.

    Of course Farrant didn't take the pictures (how could he?), but Seán Manchester had absolutely no problem (as he states on his blog*) with Beverley Mason (Chesham's wife) taking them because there is nothing wrong with collecting and/or dealing in militaria. He stood alongside Chesham while Mason took pictures. If he had something to hide WOULD HE HAVE REALLY ALLOWED HIMSELF TO BE PHOTOGRAPHED? The pictures are quite innocent.

    * http://kevin-chesham.blogspot.co.uk/

    In the UK you are deemed innocent until proven guilty. The false accusation that Seán Manchester was a memebr of the NF is sourced to one person - David Farrant - and nobody else. Who other than Farrant makes this claim apart from those using Farrant as their source to further their anti-Seán Manchester agenda, eg Chesham. If you have been a member of a political party there will be a record of it. Where is Seán Manchester listed on the NF membership rolls? He isn't. And surely other people would have been aware of his NF membership. Yet they are not. And what sense is there in him being an NF member while having anti-NF correspondence published in newspapers under his own name? I believe the correspondence in question appeared near the end of the 1960s.

    You seem to apply your brain, Anthony, in only one direction, ie the direction which serves YOUR agenda. You say that both Kevin Chesham and Seán Manchester are plausible, and if both are right they are both "Nazi-lovers."

    First, I don't find Kevin Chesham at all plausible. His blog allegations read like deranged rants and make absolutely no sense when you talk to others who know Seán Manchester and were actually present at the time. It sound like Chesham is having a joke and it is most unconvincing. He is playing to the audience where Farrant is in the front row.

    Second, Kevin Chesham suffered a stroke just before he disappeared off to New Zealand. It is a fact that strokes can result in a traumatic personality change where family and friends barely recognise the person. This is what I believe happened to Chesham and what was merely a fascination many in the UK of his generation have with the Third Reich turned into something sinister, especially after exposure to Kerry Bolton whom he would have had to seek out.

    Third, Seán Manchester has a history from the 1960s to the present day of campaigning, supporting and holding office in various peace groups. This is a matter of public record. He has even appeared on radio and television to further his peace and anti-war views. Can any of you lot say the same? Farrant and Chesham certainly can't! That's for sure. Yet you who have been armchair commentators have the temerity to attack a man in a particularly vile and malicious manner who has actually gone out onto the streets to put his face in the way of fists wielded by NF thugs (as recorded in the media Christmas 1981 and New Year 1982). Now he has to listen to the likes of Chesham parroting Farrant that he was an NF member! It makes me sick to the core to see this sort of drivel disseminated on the internet.

    Seán Manchester's case as put forward on his blog is entirely plausible because it is sincere and is backed up by public records. Chesham and farrant's case is backed up by nothing than the spin they put on innocent pictures to incriminate somebody they jointly hate and are colluding to harm.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 'The issue is you publicly stating that Seán Manchester holds "fascist views" when he does not. You have amply demonstrated your inability to attribute a single word to him which could be considered a "fascist."'

      Fair enough. I'll defer that to Kev. And I'll amend, again: Manchester allegedly has fascist views and sympathies.

      'Pictures of WWII militaria, a small part of a much larger collection in photographed in 2007, is not evidence of someone holding "fascist views." It is evidence of someone dealing in and collecting militaria. And, yes, that does include framed photographs and other miscellany as well as swords and medals. All of it comes under militaria.'

      No, it isn't. There's no price tags, nothing that would indicate anything in that room was up for sale. That Manchester, a Bishop, would even want to trade such merch - and collect it, however, is a bit disturbing.

      On top of that, not all the items are 'militaria', a bogus claim in its own, and the 'WWII' scope is disingenious, as WWII militaria from other nations is not present. It's Nazi all the way.

      'He stood alongside Chesham while Mason took pictures. If he had something to hide WOULD HE HAVE REALLY ALLOWED HIMSELF TO BE PHOTOGRAPHED? The pictures are quite innocent.'

      Not in context with Kev's claims and not in context with some of that so-called 'militaria' being reused. See: http://kevchesham.blogspot.com.au/p/lets-play-dressing-up.html

      'In the UK you are deemed innocent until proven guilty. The false accusation that Seán Manchester was a memebr of the NF is sourced to one person - David Farrant - and nobody else.'

      'I was later to learn,' says Kev, 'that in the late 1960s Sean had canvassed for the National Front although he did not disclose this to me at the time.' He's not the only one making the claim.

      'And what sense is there in him being an NF member while having anti-NF correspondence published in newspapers under his own name? I believe the correspondence in question appeared near the end of the 1960s.'

      You 'believe' something Manchester said on his blog. That's what he said. I said there was no citation for that letter. True. Who's to say it wasn't photoshopped, etc. A source would be good.

      'You seem to apply your brain, Anthony, in only one direction, ie the direction which serves YOUR agenda. You say that both Kevin Chesham and Seán Manchester are plausible, and if both are right they are both "Nazi-lovers."'

      Yes, going on what they've written on their respective blogs.

      Delete
    2. 'First, I don't find Kevin Chesham at all plausible. His blog allegations read like deranged rants and make absolutely no sense when you talk to others who know Seán Manchester and were actually present at the time.'

      See, that 'talk to others' is a problem, because it's one of the repeated vague allusions to 'others' (like critics of my co-admined forum) you've given here. Give leads.

      'It sound like Chesham is having a joke and it is most unconvincing. He is playing to the audience where Farrant is in the front row.'

      Chesham's obviously doing more than 'having a joke'. The extract forms a greater part of his upcoming autobiography.

      'Second, Kevin Chesham suffered a stroke just before he disappeared off to New Zealand. It is a fact that strokes can result in a traumatic personality change where family and friends barely recognise the person.'

      Possible, but not verified.

      'This is what I believe happened to Chesham and what was merely a fascination many in the UK of his generation have with the Third Reich turned into something sinister, especially after exposure to Kerry Bolton whom he would have had to seek out.'

      In other words, you believe what Manchester says, as you've aped his 'case'. In terms of his interaction with Bolton, it's only Manchester - and Manchester's spider friend - who've alluded to that.

      'Third, Seán Manchester has a history from the 1960s to the present day of campaigning, supporting and holding office in various peace groups. This is a matter of public record.'

      Yes, the CND thing. I've acknowledged that, though I only know of another, Pax Christi.

      'He has even appeared on radio and television to further his peace and anti-war views. Can any of you lot say the same? Farrant and Chesham certainly can't!'

      Fair call. Though I'll say he has a decidedly naive view of Britain's involvement in WW2.

      'It makes me sick to the core to see this sort of drivel disseminated on the internet.'

      All that aside, what if Chesham is actually telling the truth? Do you not consider that a possibility?

      'Seán Manchester's case as put forward on his blog is entirely plausible because it is sincere and is backed up by public records. Chesham and farrant's case is backed up by nothing than the spin they put on innocent pictures to incriminate somebody they jointly hate and are colluding to harm.'

      That's an opinion, not fact. Like I said, at this point, it's one man's word against another's, especially as a lot of Manchester's rebuttals are interpretations of Chesham's 'behaviour'.

      Delete
  13. I hate to break in here,but concerning using photos without permission,what about all the photos the vampire used of his ex-secretary and girlfriend?I really doubt she will have given her permission to use them in his books?Especially,as a lot of things hes put in the books dont exactly make her look good?And who told the vampire to publish a photo of a certain young lady,the one that the vampire is now going round telling everyone she is NOT his wife?Its quite apparrant that the vampire is using both this woman{dont forget had his photo taken with her in the first place-whose idea do you think THAT was?} and his real wife[thats if he has one} ,once more ,to attract massive attention to himself!He appears to use anyone in this way-can you not see what he is doing?

    ReplyDelete
  14. "That Manchester, a Bishop, would even want to trade such merch - and collect it, however, is a bit disturbing."

    I know of priests and bishops who trade in far worse than militaria which only forms a tiny part of Seán Manchester's antique collection; one that as far as WWI and WWII are concerned he does not hang onto but trades.

    "There's no price tags, nothing that would indicate anything in that room was up for sale."

    They are stored in a room at one of his houses. Have you ever been to a militaria and antique fair, Anthony? You will find that "price tags" are seldom in evidence. Even in antique shops rarely do you see "price tags." This is obviously an area outside your sphere of knowledge and experience.

    "'I was later to learn,' says Kev, 'that in the late 1960s Sean had canvassed for the National Front although he did not disclose this to me at the time.' He's not the only one making the claim."

    Kevin Chesham "learned" this peice of poisonous disinformation from David Farrant. If not, from whom? There is only one person who has made this false allegation and it is Farrant, and that is who Chesham "learned" it from. Have you tried asking Chesham? If he lies and denies it is Farrant you need to obtain a name and that name needs to be cross-examined throroughly. These are dangerous and libellous allegations for anyone to make.

    "You 'believe' something Manchester said on his blog. That's what he said. I said there was no citation for that letter. True. Who's to say it wasn't photoshopped, etc."

    Do you really believe what you are suggesting, Anthony? You have the image of the original newspaper cutting. Have it analysed for "photoshopping" if you really want to bend over backwards that far to kiss Farrant's black propaganda on the behind to support your own anti-Seán Manchester prejudice.

    "The extract forms a greater part of his upcoming autobiography."

    I'll believe that when I see it. Kevin Chesham would need a ghost writer as he can barely string a sentence together - well, I suppose he's got one in Beverley Mason - but the only people interested in anything he's got to to say are those like yourself with an axe to grind against Seán Manchester.

    I wholeheartedly concur with this extract from Seán Manchester's biographic introduction to his rebuttal of Chesham's malicious allegations:

    "He so obviously sought the fame that others he had known (or known about) throughout his life had seemingly effortlessly achieved; though he made no distinction between being famous and being infamous. He was vaguely known in triathlon circles as an athlete who was still chugging along and doing reasonably well for his age, but he knew that few people are interested in an aging and frankly uncharismatic triathlete. Like John Lennon's murderer, Mark David Chapman, born within two years of the man about whom I speak, the only way a non-entity manages the slightest modicum of 'fame' in their own mind is to 'destroy' someone already famous and become known as the person responsible for doing so. Many people believed Mark David Chapman to be unbalanced. After examining all he has done, a growing number of mutual acquaintances firmly believe that my persecutor is mentally unhinged."

    http://kevin-chesham.blogspot.co.uk/2012/02/introduction.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 'I know of priests and bishops who trade in far worse than militaria . . .'

      Two wrongs don't make a right.

      'They are stored in a room at one of his houses. Have you ever been to a militaria and antique fair, Anthony? You will find that "price tags" are seldom in evidence.'

      You said the items were clearly for sale. I said there was no such suggestion they were. You're relying on what Manchester said. Note: the WW2 militaria claim is indigenous, as a) the only WW2 side represented is the Nazis, b) a lot of the items aren't militaria.

      'Kevin Chesham "learned" this peice of poisonous disinformation from David Farrant. If not, from whom?'

      You said he learned it all from Farrant. I point out Kev echoes the same thing. From whom? You're speculating.

      'Do you really believe what you are suggesting, Anthony? You have the image of the original newspaper cutting.'

      Yes, I do. Manchester repeatedly manipulates images on his blog. Nothing wrong with a citation.

      '. . . but the only people interested in anything he's got to to say are those like yourself with an axe to grind against Seán Manchester.'

      I'm sure other people will be interested in the Nazi 'revelations', too.

      'I wholeheartedly concur with this extract from Seán Manchester's biographic introduction to his rebuttal of Chesham's malicious allegations . . .'

      Of course you do. You're his mate. It doesn't obscure that they were friends for over 30 years, regardless, so all these 'character analyses' are a little too late. Manchester's not a psychologist, but I'll tell ya, the comparisons he makes between murderers (as he also did with Anders Behring Breivik) and Kev, does make Manchester look a lil unhinged.

      Delete
  15. "All that aside, what if Chesham is actually telling the truth? Do you not consider that a possibility?"

    Not for a single moment. Kevin Chesham is a troubled man who has gambled throughout his life, looking for a short cut to reach his materialistic goals, but, like his chosen sport, there are no short cuts to the prize which for him appears to have always been "money and fame." If caught you are disqualified from the race. Chesham, as far as I am concerned, is disqualified by turning to that arch-deceiver Farrant to further his malicious ends, and by lying in his teeth about Seán Manchester.

    The last time Kevin Chesham saw Seán Manchester was in 2007 when he had the controversial pictures taken in the room storing militaria. Yet two years later in 2009 he was writing to Keith Maclean saying how much he detested Farrant and that he would not be able to control himself if he ever heard Farrant say anything negative about Seán Manchester. You've seen this correspondence in Chesham's own handwriting on the rebuttal blog.

    How can you possibly trust a man who is still sticking up for Seán Manchester two years AFTER he supposedly felt disgusted with him over his alleged position on Farrant?

    Another thing which I find hypocritical is the way Farrant's "official notice" has been reproduced by you on a Facebook group and your blog. Farrant finds it "libellous" to suggest that "Della" is someone else while he can claim that any number of people, Timelord (even yourself at one point) among them, are, in fact, really Seán Manchester. His clique have gone so far as to publish a list of people who Farrant and his cronies claim to be Seán Manchester. None of them are Seán Manchester. BUT HOW ARE THOSE CLAIMS NOT LIBELLOUS BASED ON FARRANT'S SO-CALLED "OFFICIAL NOTICE"?

    You really ought to wake up and smell the coffee, Anthony!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 'Not for a single moment. Kevin Chesham is a troubled man who has gambled throughout his life, looking for a short cut to reach his materialistic goals, but, like his chosen sport, there are no short cuts to the prize which for him appears to have always been "money and fame."'

      Do you actually have any personal familiarity with Chesham? Was he a friend of yours? An acquaintance? If so, can you prove that?

      'You've seen this correspondence in Chesham's own handwriting on the rebuttal blog.'

      I've seen something that's allegedly in Chesham's hand, but with no points of comparison - or acknowledgements - from Chesham, himself.

      'How can you possibly trust a man who is still sticking up for Seán Manchester two years AFTER he supposedly felt disgusted with him over his alleged position on Farrant?'

      Withdrawal symptoms? Inner conflict?

      'Another thing which I find hypocritical is the way Farrant's "official notice" has been reproduced by you on a Facebook group and your blog.'

      You mean linked to.

      'Farrant finds it "libellous" to suggest that "Della" is someone else while he can claim that any number of people, Timelord (even yourself at one point) among them, are, in fact, really Seán Manchester.'

      Except Farrant hasn't resorted to stealing Facebook pictures, public dissemination and blackmail as you've done. Not in the same league.

      'His clique have gone so far as to publish a list of people who Farrant and his cronies claim to be Seán Manchester. None of them are Seán Manchester.'

      A bunch of usernames, sure.

      'BUT HOW ARE THOSE CLAIMS NOT LIBELLOUS BASED ON FARRANT'S SO-CALLED "OFFICIAL NOTICE"?'

      Manchester's free to provide an official notice of his own. I did ask him, previously, which usernames he actually used online. He was incredibly vague about it.

      In the meantime, I notice you've repeatedly skipped over my question on your own involvement in the case. Were you personally involved with investigating the Highgate Vampire? Did you have any connection to its investigation?

      Delete
  16. "Withdrawal symptoms? Inner conflict?"

    Kevin Chesham claims to be a Buddhist and, having known a fair number of Buddhists, and taking what Chesham has alleged completely at face value, a Buddhist would always seek the Middle Way. Chesham has done anything but seek the Middle Way. He is clearly a liar and a rather poor one at that. Apart from Farrant and his co-conspiritors, I know of nobody who finds Kevin Chesham and Beverley Mason remotely plausible. They are transparently malicious and deceitful for reasons that they will be held accountable.

    "Except Farrant hasn't resorted to stealing Facebook pictures, public dissemination and blackmail as you've done. Not in the same league."

    Farrant has not only stolen images found on the internet, magazines and in Seán Manchester books where all rights are reserved, he has illegally reproduced them in his self-published pamphlets and books and has falsely claimed the copyright of these infringed images as his own. The number of stolen photographs and illustrations runs into scores and scores. How am I in a "league" to compare with this man when it comes to copyright infringement? Regarding "disemmination," nobody can match Farrant for all the anti-Seán Manchester material spread via self-published booklets (an entire series devoted to libelling and fabrication to try and cause harm to Seán Manchester and those close to him) and on websites, forums and blogs. How am I, or anyone else for that matter, in Farrant's "league" when it comes to any of these things? He prefers to get others to do his dirty work, but there is a plethora of material which sources directly back to Farrant.

    "Manchester's free to provide an official notice of his own. I did ask him, previously, which usernames he actually used online. He was incredibly vague about it."

    Seán Manchester was not in the slightest "vague" about it. When you asked "do you use any other usernames online?" he answered: "Not so as to appear anonymous. My identity would always be clear even if I employ a title which does not include my name in it. One username, for example, is 'Apostle of Jesus Christ'." How is that "incredibly vague"? The fact is that he seldom ever employs a username and when he does he always makes sure his identity is known.

    You obviously have a mental block when you read anything written by Seán Manchester because you always get it wrong as your comments testify.

    Your conversations are utterly circular, repetitive and obsesseive, Anthony. You are still raising the same conversational compulsions and preoccupations that can be found from you almost a decade ago. To talk to you is like talking to a voice recording on a loop.

    It is ruinous, decadent and an utter waste of one's life.

    You have obviously developed a compulsive disorder of some sort with Seán Manchester and the forty-year-old Highgate Vampire case he investigated and finally solved after years of perseverence. Nothing anyone says to you will make a blind bit of difference to your daily trolling and stalking. It is therefore counter-productive to continue to feed this unhealthy obsession of yours, as I am sure others will have also concluded. I really cannot justify viewing more of the same sick senseless circular stupidity and bothering to comment on it. There is just no point and time is much too precious.

    How empty must be your life to spend it in this way from one year to the next!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 'Kevin Chesham claims to be a Buddhist and, having known a fair number of Buddhists, and taking what Chesham has alleged completely at face value, a Buddhist would always seek the Middle Way. Chesham has done anything but seek the Middle Way. He is clearly a liar and a rather poor one at that.'

      It's hypocritical of you, a voracious Manchester defendant - even against reason - to assail Chesham's character in conjunction with his religious views, considering the man you support contradicts Christian behaviour, himself.

      As to Chesham's 'lying', that's your bias, not a factual statement. Like I've said before, it comes down to one man's word against another, in this case. And Kev has a more compelling one.

      'Farrant has not only stolen images found on the internet, magazines and in Seán Manchester books where all rights are reserved, he has illegally reproduced them in his self-published pamphlets and books and has falsely claimed the copyright of these infringed images as his own.'

      Manchester has legal avenues to pursue if it bothers him; he hasn't taken them. No need to regurgitate that, repeatedly. And, again, Manchester steals content (including pictures) from other people, too. You've deliberately ignored that, so don't pretend you find the practice morally reprehensible.

      Also, Farrant's theft has no relation to your and Manchester's blackmailing Della (again, at the expense of an innocent person), no matter how much you want to sidetrack the subject. Trying to justify it by saying 'But Farrant did this...' is utterly pathetic.

      'The number of stolen photographs and illustrations runs into scores and scores. How am I in a "league" to compare with this man when it comes to copyright infringement?'

      In that regard, you're in the same league: you're a copyright violator, too. By virtue of plagiarism.

      'Seán Manchester was not in the slightest "vague" about it. When you asked "do you use any other usernames online?" he answered: "Not so as to appear anonymous. My identity would always be clear even if I employ a title which does not include my name in it. One username, for example, is 'Apostle of Jesus Christ'." How is that "incredibly vague"?'

      Because the variables on Christian-themed usernames are incalculable, thus, 'vague'.

      'The fact is that he seldom ever employs a username and when he does he always makes sure his identity is known.'

      That's not what he said. Note, 'My identity would always be clear even if I employ a title which does not include my name in it'. And therein lies the problem: without actually stating what his other usernames are, the matter remains open to debate.

      'Your conversations are utterly circular, repetitive and obsesseive, Anthony. You are still raising the same conversational compulsions and preoccupations that can be found from you almost a decade ago. To talk to you is like talking to a voice recording on a loop.'

      No one's forcing you to speak with me, but you keep coming back for more.

      'You have obviously developed a compulsive disorder of some sort with Seán Manchester and the forty-year-old Highgate Vampire case he investigated and finally solved after years of perseverence.'

      I'm afraid that's your delusion.

      In the meantime, perhaps you could answer exactly what your involvement in the Highgate case was. Did you personally investigate it at the time?

      Delete
  17. Official Statement sent by Isaac Ben Jacob on 15 April 2012 to Bishop Seán Manchester regarding David Farrant and the person variously calling herself "Della Maria Vallicrus," "Della Escarti" and "Della Farrant":

    "Me and my wife have discovered with a lot of surprise the existence of several blogs where we are notably being associated with David Farrant and his wife or girlfriend (I don't know if she is his wife or his girlfriend), whereas we have absolutely no contact with him, and we absolutely do not share his ideas.

    "I wish to underline that my wife met David Farrant once or twice during meetings, and that it was David Farrant who started to talk to her, whereas she didn't know anything about him or his past. We recently found out that the reason why David Farrant initially made contact with my wife was in order to manipulate us, and to make you believe she was Della. If you look closely at the pictures of Della [posted in blogs], you will notice that the Della shown on the photos is always hiding her face, and that she always takes a posture which does not allow anyone to determine exactly how tall she is.

    "I have attended a meeting myself three months ago, and I have seen Della and David Farrant together at this occasion. And when I tried to take a picture of them, Della immediately threw herself at me and my wife in order to force us to delete the photo from our camera.

    "We do not have any relation or contact with Della and David Farrant, and we don't want to be associated with these two persons in any way, shape or form, because they have a sulfurous past, they have a reputation of being Satanists, and they are acquainted with people like Jean-Paul Bourre, whom I don't want to hear about.

    "I know you have done research about me, and consequently you know I am an earnest academic researcher who uses scientific methods. Therefore you also know that I reject and condemn all magical practices, heretical deviancies, and obviously, people such as David Farrant, who have practised Satanism.

    "I think that you and I have been manipulated in this case, and that you could help us reestablish the truth."

    Source:

    http://therightreverendseanmanchester.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/official-statement-from-isaac-ben-jacob.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If that statement is legitimate, then it also proves you were stalking the wrong person, Arminius - and that Manchester endorsed it. What makes it doubly bizarre, is that Isaac would release it through Manchester (!).

      In the meantime, could you state what your actual involvement in the Highgate case was? Did you personally investigate it?

      Delete
  18. While I support the statement made by Isaac Ben Jacob in principle, it does not prove that a certain person did not play her part in Farrant's deception. I have come to agree with "demonflyonthewall" that "Della Farrant" is largely Farrant's "imaginary friend" or rather "imaginary wife."

    There is probably someone he is able to wheel out for podcasts and other publicity garnering stunts; someone who is young enough to be his grandaughter with a plain (slightly Cockney) London accent who is so immersed in the dark occult that Seán Manchester represents symbolically her natural enemy whom she has grown to despise. Coupled with all the nonsense fed to her by Farrant, we only need to stand back, light the blue touch paper, and watch her rant her way into Farrant's good books by doing most of his dirty work for him. I feel there are strong indications this young female is quite hysterical and possibly unhinged. You'd have to be really!

    Whether this person is the same stooge in the strategically posed pictures is debatable and irrelevant. I can imagine there is some truth in what Jacob says about Farrant sliding up to his wife and insinuating himself into a picture with her before she realises what is happening. She and the dupe in the "Della" pictures unfortunately share a striking resemblance in many ways, even to the extent of having similar occupations, interests, beliefs and alleged origin in the London Borough of Kensington and Chelsea.

    I am also aware that Jacob has not been entirely honest in his remarks about certain people and his own relationship to Freemasonry and the occult. The French Luciferian and sacrificer of animals in graveyards Jean-Paul Bourre, for example, has been listed as one of Jacob's Facebook friends from the moment he joined Facebook. His wife is also a Facebook friend of Farrant.

    So it's a murky picture at best, and one that is not going to get any clearer as Jacob and his wife scrambled to set their accounts to private.

    I would like to correct a mistake made somewhere on this blog by me, however, and that is that I identified "demonflyonthewall" as Barbara Green (aka GreenOrchid") when I should have identified her as Angie Watkins (aka "BlackOrchid").

    While on the subject of Barbara Green, I understand she has still not received any money from Anthony Hogg to cover the postage for all the free books written by Seán Manchester and other material produced by David Farrant he received in Australia from her entirely at her own cost. He apparently asked Barbara Green for this material and she was daft enough to send him it. I also understand that in the last few hours Anthony Hogg has been "unfriended" by Barbara Green on Facebook. One hardly need wonder why!

    ReplyDelete
  19. This wall of walls merely sidestepps the fact that you - and Manchester - have been caught out stalking and blackmailing Isaac's wife, Christine.

    To use her 'striking resemblance' as an excuse for your actions in no way justifies them, especially when you went on and on about 'knowing' it was her. You should both do the decent thing and apologise to all parties concerned.

    The rest of your commentary is also a diversion from a pertinent question you repeatedly sidestep: could you state what your actual involvement in the Highgate case was? Did you personally investigate it?

    ReplyDelete