Your cart is currently empty!
The Highgate Vampire – An Exercise In Deception?
Its a wonderfully alluring premise: Slavic folklore’s most infamous export, a haemaphogic, undead vampire taking up residence amidst the Gothic decay of London’s best known cemetery. It is a tale reflecting its time, heavily laden with the themes of fictional horror writing and the fears of a domestic populous, one suspicious of youth, deviance and…
11 minutes
Its a wonderfully alluring premise: Slavic folklore’s most infamous export, a haemaphogic, undead vampire taking up residence amidst the Gothic decay of London’s best known cemetery. It is a tale reflecting its time, heavily laden with the themes of fictional horror writing and the fears of a domestic populous, one suspicious of youth, deviance and occultism. Whereas most observers ponder the question asked by the local media – ‘does a wampyr walk in Highgate? – it is more prudent to query the role deception has played in the case.
Much of what we know for certain about the case is recorded in the local media of the time. Local man David Farrant wrote into the Hampstead and Highgate Express, relaying information of his nocturnal encounter with a tall, dark figure at the cemetery gates on Swains Lane, the narrow road separating Highgate Cemetery’s eastern and western grounds. It ended with an appeal for readers with similar experiences to write in. Farrant, possessing ‘no knowledge’ of the paranormal, would be interested to read any such correspondence1. The plea was quickly answered as a string of writers shared details. One professed to having seen the ‘same type’ of figure2 as Farrant, although the others referred to seemingly different apparitions3 4 5.
Perhaps events would have ended here were it not for the actions of another local man, Sean Manchester. He visited the Hampstead and Highgate Express’s offices, offering his opinion on the figure; it was really the form of a vampire, an undead mediaeval nobleman brought to these shores from Wallachia, part of the modern day state of Romania6. It would seem the once fashionable, but increasingly neglected West Cemetery gave the parasitic creature an ideal hiding place. It was a location popular with societal fringes of the living, too. Vandals had caused significant damage to vaults and gravestones7, whilst rumours persisted of Satanic rituals occurring on the site8.
The newspaper followed up Manchester’s extraordinary suggestion by bringing him together with Farrant for interview and photographs at the cemetery. The latter brought attention to the fox corpses he had discovered in the grounds, agreeing this appeared to lend weight to the vampiric hypothesis9.
Word of the supposed vampire in Highgate Cemetery reached producers at Thames Television. With Friday 13 March approaching, they decided to run a paranormal themed feature for their news show. Reporter Sandra Harris was dispatched with a film crew to learn more from Farrant and Manchester, compiling a sensational interview that would have unforseen consequences. Approaching the end of questioning, Manchester declared Farrant would be returning to the cemetery, at night, to hunt down and destroy the vampire by decapitation10. Broadcast at 6pm on 13 March, the piece attracted a crowd of curious onlookers and would be vampire hunters to Swains Lane. As police attempted to prevent entry, individuals who managed to scale the cemetery walls quickly retreated, spooked by the darkness and what it concealed11. Sensibly, amidst such media and police attention, Farrant stayed away12. Even so, the ‘mass vampire hunt’ of 1970 marked a turning point in events.
More and more media outlets were keen to feature Farrant as a Van Helsing for the 1970s. He posed for photographs with the vampire hunter’s tools of crucifix and stake, even being accompanied by journalists on nighttime trespasses into the cemetery13. He, and other would be vampire slayers, were a concern for local residents and the cemetery’s inadequately financed operator. The Metropolitan Police began to take considerable interest in Farrant’s activities, arresting him inside Highgate Cemetery during August 197014. Briefly placed on remand in Brixton Prison pending medical reports15, Farrant’s absence was exploited by Manchester. The Hornsey Journal of 28 August, 1970, featured a report of the rival occultist performing a daytime exorcism inside a Highgate tomb – the one he suspected was occupied by the vampire16.
Although cleared of any criminal activity at his trial in September 197017, police would gather enough photographic evidence of Farrant’s nocturnal forays to successfully jail him18, in 1974, on charges of maliciously damaging a vault, and interfering with a corpse19. Farrant has explained his activities during these unauthorised visits to the cemetery as attempts to psychically communicate with the entity, one he believes was raised by satanic activity20. Indeed, Farrant’s autobiography makes reference to his role as both a psychic investigator21 and Wiccan with an equivalent rank of High Priest22. It seems he was aware of ghostly activity in Highgate Cemetery as far back as 196623. Furthermore, he was already investigating when he penned his letter to the Hampstead and Highgate Express24. Today, David Farrant contents himself with collating new witness reports of supernatural activity in and around the cemetery. Although clearly happy to have posed as vampire hunter extraordinaire for the media, he states he did not and does not believe in the existence of undead bloodsucking creatures25.
For Manchester, the case is over. In 1985 he self published the now rare first edition of The Highgate Vampire. This, and its subsequent revision, offer a narrative that appears far fetched: Sean investigates what is afflicting the mysteriously anaemic teenager Elizabeth Wojdyla26. Following prescription of assorted vampire repellents by Manchester, the vampire moves on to another victim, a beautiful, innocent blonde girl referred to only as Lusia27. Whilst sleepwalking, Lusia guides Sean to the catacombs in Highgate Cemetery’s western burial ground. He concludes this is the vampire’s lair28. On the night of the mass vampire hunt, Sean and a group of one hundred assistants evade police to make it to the catacombs. Unable to gain entry through the iron doors, Manchester uses a rope to abseil into an empty tomb. Here he further depletes his stock of vampire repellents29.
Dissatisfied at his failure to destroy the vampire, Manchester and a small team of helpers return to the cemetery for a daytime visit. Sean soothes Lusia into a trance and she leads the investigators to a vault in the cemetery’s famous Lebanon Circle. The brave party enter the tomb and find the vampire resting in its coffin. Sean’s assistants dissuade him from staking the creature, suggesting he should seek permission from the ‘correct quarter’ before committing such ‘sacrilege’. As an alternative, Manchester performs an exorcism. (This is the same exorcism as reported in the Hornsey Journal of 28 August 1970.) The tomb was subsequently sealed by the cemetery operators, apparently at Manchester’s behest, using garlic infused concrete30!
Manchester’s tale does not end here. Lusia becomes increasingly unwell and Sean learns of her death31. Clues in the local press lead him to an abandoned, eerie and unwelcoming house in Crouch End32. Suspecting the vampire has made this his new home, Sean once again assembles a hand picked team to battle the entity. On this occasion he is successful, finding the vampire once more in its coffin. Manchester drives a stake through its heart before condemning the remains to fire33.
Manchester’s version of events have attracted an unsurprising level of critique. The most obvious is the character of the sleepwalking, blonde, innocent Lusia; a description reminiscent of Bram Stoker’s Lucy Westenra34. Like Lucy, Lusia becomes a vampire, although in the climax of The Highgate Vampire she mutates into a giant spider35! Similarity is noted here with a scene in Dennis Wheatley’s The Devil Rides Out, a film Manchester has surely seen; it is briefly mentioned in the original edition of The Highgate Vampire36. Writer Gareth Medway goes further, drawing attention to possible instances of plagiarism within the text37.
Manchester’s version of the Highgate drama is clearly an entertaining mix of fact, embellishment, exaggeration and outright fantasy. Intriguingly, the accusation of utilising fictional licence is one Sean has levelled at his rival vampire hunter, David Farrant. He observes inconsistencies in Farrant’s recall of the number of occasions he sighted the apparition38. Possibly more damaging is the role played by Anthony Hill, a mutual friend of both Sean and David. Manchester alleges Farrant and Hill concocted a plan to hoax sightings of an apparition at Highgate Cemetery39. To support his argument, Manchester has produced photographs of Farrant – wearing make up and a top hat – larking around in the cemetery40. He also claims to have audio recordings of Farrant and Hill planning their hoax, although these have not been made available to the public41.
It is also suspicious that some of the correspondents who answered Farrant’s letter in the Hampstead and Highgate Express were known to him. For example, Arieli Nava and Kenny Frewin42. Could it be that Farrant was drumming up false witness statements to lend credence to his own sighting? It appears so. In the course of Farrant’s 1974 trial, his assistant Victoria Jervis was called as a witness. Under oath she confessed to writing ‘false letters… to a local paper to stimulate publicity for the accused’43.
There are other dubious elements to Farrant’s version of events. One is the identity of ‘Thornton’, an apparition witness whose testimony predates Farrant’s44. The vampire hunter used this otherwise unidentified individual’s sighting to support the validity of his own encounter. In March 2014, Farrant associate John Pope stated Thornton was an alias of none other than Anthony Hill45. Pope went on to add that it was Manchester who told him this, although he personally believed Thornton never actually existed46. Farrant is also yet to state the identity of his other historic witness, identified only as an old woman47.
Since 1974 Farrant has repeatedly claimed there are sources that confirm the existence of an apparition at the cemetery during the Victorian era48. Yet he has never named them. Forty years on, he admitted these sources were oral and he had not located anything in writing49. One must question the veracity of these historical reports when all there is to account for them is Farrant’s word.
To conclude, the Highgate Vampire is a bizarre fusion of fantasy fused with reality and Hammer horror. It may be no coincidence the movie Taste the Blood of Dracula, partly filmed in Highgate Cemetery, was released in the same year50. Armed with this knowledge and the dubious recollections of both Farrant and Manchester, it is little wonder this most baffling piece of 20th century London lore is best viewed as legend. To both protagonists, though, it is more than that. The publicity they have received continues to feed both men’s status as minor esoteric celebrities. They continue to engage in a bitter feud fought through fibre optic cables. But do not be too harsh against either man; just consider how many similar events involving supernatural phenomena are constructed on shifting or swampy ground – the paranormal relies upon human mouths and hands to forge its greatest episodes.
Sources
1. Farrant, D. Letter. Hampstead and Highgate Express, 6 February 1970: 26
2. Arieli, N. Letter. Hampstead and Highgate Express, 13 February 1970: 25
3. Various writers. Letters. Hampstead and Highgate Express, 13 February 1970: p.25
4. Various writers. Letters. Hampstead and Highgate Express, 20 February 1970: p.1, 27
5. Various writers. Letters. Hampstead and Highgate Express, 27 February 1970: p.6
6. Uncredited (1970, 27 February), “Does a Wampyr Walk in Highgate?” Hampstead and Highgate Express, p.1
7. Bickersteth, J. (undated) “History”, Highgate Cemetery, retrieved from: http://highgatecemetery.org/about/history, cited 20 March 2014
8. Demant, K. (2003), “Plan 9 From Highgate Cemetery”, London: Mutiny! Press
9. Uncredited (1970, 6 March), “Why do the Foxes Die?” Hampstead and Highgate Express, p.1
10. Farrant, D. (2009), “David Farrant: In the Shadow of the Highgate Vampire – An Autobiography, volume 1”, London: British Psychic and Occult Society, p.188
11. Manchester, S. (1985), “The Highgate Vampire”, London: British Occult Society, p.51
12. Demant, K. (2003)
13. Simmons, B. “Midnight Vigil for the Highgate Vampire”, Evening News, 16 October 1970
14. Farrant, D. (2009), p.193-194
15. Demant, K. (2003)
16. Manchester, S. (1985), p.58
17. Farrant, D. (2009) p.196
18. Fielder, M. “King of Black Magic Guilty”, The Sun, 28 June 1974
19. Farrant, D. (2011), “David Farrant: Out of the Shadows – An Autobiography, volume 2”, London: British Psychic and Occult Society, pp.5-7
20. Farrant, D. (2009), p.201
21. Farrant, D. (2009), p.166-167
22. Farrant, D. (2009), p.61
23. Demant, K. (2003)
24. Ibid.
25. Farrant, D. (interviewee). (28 September, 2009), Righteous Indignation (no.18) [Audio podcast]. Retrieved from https://ipadio.s3.amazonaws.com/mp3/4377_20091106184155.mp3
26. Manchester, S. (1985), pp.34-40
27. Manchester, S. (1985), p.45, 46
28. Manchester, S. (1985), p.46, 47
29. Manchester, S. (1985), pp.50-52
30. Manchester, S. (1985), pp.53-58
31. Manchester, S. (1985), p.120
32. Manchester, S. (1985), p.91, 92
33. Manchester, S. (1985), pp. 93-113
34. McWilliams, R. (2013), “Elizabeth Siddal – The First ‘Vampire’ of Highgate?’, The Vampire Exhumed, retrieved from http://thehighgatevampireexhumed.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/elizabeth-siddal-true-vampire-of.html, cited March 2014
35. Manchester, S. (1991) “The Highgate Vampire”, revised edn. London: Gothic Press, p.182
36. Manchester, S. (1985), p.140
37. Medway, G. (2002), “That Sounds Familiar”, Kevin Chesham, retrieved from http://kevchesham.blogspot.co.uk/p/that-sounds-familar.html, cited March 2004
38. Manchester, S. (2009) “One, Two or Three Vampire Sightings?”, Did A Wampyr Walk in Highgate?, retrieved from http://highgatevampire.blogspot.co.uk/2009/12/one-two-or-three-vampire-sightings.html, cited March 2014
39. Manchester, S. (2010) “Tony Hill”, Friends of Bishop Sean Manchester, retrieved from http://friendsofbishopseanmanchester.blogspot.co.uk/2010/10/tony-hill.html, cited March 2014
40. Manchester, S. (2011) “Farrant Facts”, The Vampirologist, retrieved from http://vampirologist.blogspot.co.uk/2011/11/farrant-facts.html, cited March 2014
41. Manchester, S. (2010)
42. Ibid.
43. Hogg, A. (2011), “Tomb aux Folles”, Did a Wampyr Walk in Highgate?, retrieved from http://dawwih.blogspot.co.uk/2011/09/tomb-aux-folles.html, cited March 2014
44. Farrant, D. (2009), p.174
45. Pope, J. (2014), The Highgate Vampire Chronicles. Facebook. 21/03. Retrieved from https://www.facebook.com/groups/502796539750958/?fref=ts, cited March 2014
46. Ibid.
47. Farrant, D. (2009), p.175
48. Hogg, A. (2011), “Victorian Era Vampire or Modern Day Sham?”, Did a Wampyr Walk in Highgate?, retrieved from http://dawwih.blogspot.co.uk/2011/07/victorian-era-vampire-or-modern-day.html, cited March 2014
49. Farrant, D. (2014), The Highgate Vampire Chronicles. Facebook. 13/03. Retrieved from https://www.facebook.com/groups/502796539750958/?fref=ts, cited March 2014
50. Coniam, M. (2010), “Highgate Cemetery is Officially a Vampire Free Zone”, Carfax Abbey, retrieved from http://carfaxabbey.blogspot.co.uk/2010/04/highgate-cemetery-is-officially-hammer.html, cited March 2014
Sharing's Caring!
159 responses to “The Highgate Vampire – An Exercise In Deception?”
-
When you refer to John Pope I take it you mean the man who now calls himself Pope de Locksley?
-
This is one of the best write-ups of the case I’ve ever read. Great work, Trystan!
-
John Russell Pope has expanded his name considerably since the previous century when it was indeed “John Pope de Locksley.” He nowadays likes to be known as “John Pope de Locksley Baron Von Richthofen [sic]”; and very occasionally goes under the equally improbable moniker of “Sheikh Alladin Aarafat Grand Mulla,”
-
It should also be understood that Pope currently uses several other self-descriptions besides “John Russell Pope de Locksley Baron Von Richthofen Sheikh Alladin Aarafat Grand Mulla,” but these curious appellations are most prominent.
Some disclosure regarding the author of the article “The Highgate Vampire – An Exercise In Deception?” might also not go amiss.
Trystan Lewis Swale is a Facebook friend of John Pope (Swale befriended Pope, not the other way around), and both are friends with “Bishop Bonkers” (a fraudulent Facebook account set up by Farrant to incite malice against Bishop Seán Manchester). Three people using the surname “Farrant” are “friends” of this puerile hate group of Facebook. Needless to say, John Pope is also an established Facebook friend of David Farrant (they first met in 1973 when they collaborated in a stream of manufactured outrages for the press, culminating in their joint arrest during a supposed demon-raising ritual), as is almost every person who elects to support the “Bishop Bonkers” page which uses as its icon a cartoon image intended to represent and, of course, ridicule Bishop Seán Manchester.
Some people might find it a bit rich for a man who styles himself “John Russell Pope de Locksley Baron Von Richthofen Sheikh Alladin Aarafat Grand Mulla” to support a page on Facebook which claims Bishop Seán Manchester is “bonkers”!
More importantly, Swale, the author of the article in question, seems to rejoice in quoting Pope’s demented nonsense about Hill, Thornton and Manchester, as if it is some sort of amazing coup. Yet Swale, Pope and others of that ilk are quite clearly trying desperately to discredit Bishop Seán Manchester by any means necessary.
-
You’re right Sean. I added John Pope as a ‘friend’ on Facebook. But let’s not forget that I initially did that with you as well. Being Facebook ‘friends’ with someone hardly means we’re in cahoots as part of David Farrant’s evil cabal. Far from it; I’ve become persona non grata with the Farrants for daring to ask about the Victorian sources David has repeatedly cited in his accounts of the case since 1974.
Quoting Pope is hardly some amazing coup. John made those comments to Anthony Hogg in the public domain. I’m merely reproducing them. The hilarious thing is that in making them, John has raised considerable suspicion as to the identity of ‘Thornton’. But you’re clearly too paranoid to be able to see through that.
I think you’ll find the Bishop Bonkers group has nothing to do with with David. The reason I and others have joined it is because that is how you are perceived in the wider world. I actually worry for you, Sean. Nobody gets taken in by what you’re saying. You’re a metaphorically bald man clinging onto a comb. A friend of mine is a mental health nurse and suggests you should seek professional help as you display the traits of paranoid schizophrenia. Manchester … Pope … Farrant … you’re all rather eccentric at the very least.
You do some crazy stuff Sean. Let’s not forget Ofcom ruled it was fair for you to be described as a ‘1970s weirdo’. You sit there with 254 separate identities, the IP addresses of which can easily traced back to your home internet connection. You seriously claimed to have killed at least two vampires, one of which turned into a giant spider to do battle with you. You harrassed the owners of the AMCGLTD website to the point of changing webhosts, with their new hosts setting up an IP block against you. You issued fraudulent DMCA claims against Anthony Hogg. You pursued a vendetta against blogger Alexander Lucard because, spelled backwards his name is Dracul A. Your wacky behaviour has even merited a thread on the JREF forum:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=71335
And on Fortean Times too:
http://www.forteantimes.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4102
And all of that stuff where you played Nazi officer dress up games in a pretence to distance yourself from the horrendous trick you played upon the Jewish population of Borehamwood:
http://thehighgatevampire.co.uk/leavesthatwither/2013/12/19/byrne-or-bullshitter/
Even that image you’re using as your avatar now belonged to your alter-ego Vebjorn Hastsomethingorother. Who, in turn, was shown to be you, as per the previous link. If anyone wants to see the avatar I will happily provide it: severnforteana@gmail.com.
I suggest you move on, Sean.
-
Regarding Pope’s name, at least he doesn’t pretend to be someone else, as you’ve done with “Ruthwen Glenarvon,” “George Byron,” “Vebjørn Hästehufvud” and a slew of others. As to adopting funny titles, you once billed yourself “Britain’s No. 1 Psychic,” “The Magister,” “Lord Manchester,” etc. So Pope’s name changes are irrelevant.
What’s more interesting is what he has to say, not to mention the fact that, like Farrant, he was also a former friend of yours; someone who participated in publicity stunts with you, too.
Also, talking in third person, as you’re doing now, does nothing to abate your “bonkers” status. But more tellingly, you haven’t actually been able to refute what Trystan’s written, re: the strength of your case, your evidence, etc. Using ad hominems and other logical fallacies, as you’ve been doing, only digs the hole deeper – for you.
-
“The reason I and others have joined [the “Bishop Bonkers” hate group] is because that is how [Bishop Manchester] is perceived in the wider world.” – Trystan Lewis Swale
The “Bishop Bonkers” hate group consists of barely more than fifty or so people (Farrant’s son added both his accounts and is therefore registered twice), most of whom overwhelmingly are found to be Facebook friends and supporters of Farrant. It is pretty clear who is behind this fraudulent Facebook account which falsely alleges that Bishop Seán Manchester is in a “civil partnership” when, in actual fact, he has a wife; and is described in a manner identical to terminology used by Farrant, ie “Head Bish/ Pope wannabe at My Outhouse Cathedral in the garden.”
Match that against the thousands who befriend Bishop Seán Manchester, eg 5,000 on his original account which long ago became full to overflowing, and the support the Bishop receives from people just about everywhere without seeking it. The reason Swale and most of the others chose to support the “Bishop Bonkers” Facebook page is because they have an agenda. It is not difficult to see what it is.
Apart from those like Swale who cannot abide anyone who believes anything beyond the material universe, particularly if that belief is faith-based, there are Satanists and like-minded LHP fellow-travellers such as Jean-Paul Bourre and Marcos Drake, both of whom like to be described as Luciferians, and wannabe “vampires” such as Jason De Marco whose malice towards Bishop Manchester is hysterical (in the medical sense). Bourre and Drake, like most others who support the hate group, are friends and supporters of David Farrant, someone they know personally. Bourre, moreover, has partaken in publicity-seeking outrages with Farrant while Drake has interviewed him sympathetically for a French TV channel.
How would Trystan Lewis Swale know how Bishop Seán Manchester is “perceived in the wider world”? He only knows how he and a small number of like-minded individuals with similar agendas perceive him. Just look at those malicious individuals and it soon becomes clear why they might evince such antipathy.
-
Where do you get this idea from that I ‘cannot abide anyone who believes anything beyond the material universe, particularly if that belief is faith-based’? Your argument falls flat given I’m married to a practicing pagan who is an alternative medicine practitioner.
What is abundantly clear is that you’re such a victim, Sean. The Farrants, me, Anthony, Kevin Chesham, the Demants, Bourre, Campbell, JREF, Fortean Times, Drake, Thorne, Isaaman, Drake, Iltyd Thomas, Alex Lucard, Ecker etc etc etc. All of these ‘malicious people’ out to get you. Do you really think this is the case? If you do, well. Could it be these people have actually taken the time to read your book on the Highgate Vampire and take it for the part-plagiarised fantasy it is? That isn’t malice, Sean. It’s called living in the real world. If you’re going to claim fairy tales are true, you’re going to attract critique. Those links demonstrate how you’re perceived in the outside world; readers who actually have gotten this far can read them for some choice quotes.
Bottom line is this, Sean. You can keep hounding me and others online. But you leave a trail behind you. And all that is needed is for that trail to be collected and reproduced with references. You can throw all the insults at me you like at me but, as Anthony says, you can’t refute the allegations to have been levelled at you.
-
-
“A friend of mine is a mental health nurse and suggests [Bishop Manchester] should seek professional help as [he] displays the traits of paranoid schizophrenia.” – Trystan Lewis Swale
This from a man who publishes diabolical symbolism as his banner image, dresses up as some sort of carnival Satanist and continually posts photographs of his young children on Facebook for every pervert with a computer to ogle.
Has Swale no shame or sense of propriety?
Describing others as paranoid schizophrenics while behaving like one himself is a potential sign of paranoid schizophrenia.
Perhaps Trystan Lewis Swale should seek some professional help?
-
Thanks for pointing out that perverts are free to ogle my children. I shall adjust my settings accordingly. And I shall keep them under lock and key so that no pervert in the community will ever clasp eyes on them. Actually, by posting a link to my photographs are you not actually empowering perverts to find those images? Does that not make you as bad as them?
For an Old Catholic Bishop I would have thought you’d be able to distinguish between dressing up as a carnival Satanist and dressing up as a monk in a local museum. As much as I hate to say it, I look far more pious as a monk than you do in a biretta.
-
-
British Occult Society – You will note I have removed the link to images of Tristan Swales children from your comment. I ask that in the interest of common sense and decency you would kindly refrain from posting such links again. Any further links of this nature will result in your posts being deleted immediately.
-
“All of these ‘malicious people’ out to get [Bishop Manchester]. Does [Bishop Manchester] really think this is the case?” – Trystan Lewis Swale
Obviously not. That is a perception held by Swale and a handful of others.
One thing is apparent, however, and that is that none of this has anything to do with debating the topic used as a vehicle to bait Bishop Seán Manchester.
Swale has no interest in spiritual or supernatural matters. He scoffs at all of it and attempts to debunk it whenever he can, but his interest in hounding the bishop is rather more sinister. Swale has become so obsessed with Bishop Manchester that he purchased a website domain with an identical name to that of the title of one of Bishop Manchester’s best selling books: “The Highgate Vampire” (British Occult Society, 1985; Gothic Press, 1991).
The majority of Trystan Lewis Swale’s blogs, articles, comments and tirades of late concentrate on attacking Bishop Seán Manchester more than anything else.
Swale’s interest is not academic, impartial or open-minded. It is personal and it is part of an agenda which at its root harbours brooding, toxic, resentful malice.
-
Sean, I’ve written about you here in the context of the Highgate Vampire case. That you’ve been mentioned is because you claimed to have killed the thing! Lol! That is hardly a case of baiting you, especially as you’ve written books on the case!!! I’m perfectly entitled to buy a domain called thehighgatevampire.co.uk. Doing such a thing does not indicate obsession; it’s where I’m going to be placing my write up of the case. I didn’t see you rushing out to buy it. You’ve had since 1970. 😉
If I have written about you on my blog it is in the context of the campaign of harassment YOU have waged against me since I contacted you for interview in 2009. You refused but then got your knickers in a twist because I interviewed David Farrant instead.
-
In the interests of transparency, British Occult Society” IS Sean Manchester… a man of many pseudonyms himself, frequently all on the same comments page.
Yes, that’s him. A very colourful character.
-
“If I have written about you on my blog it is in the context of the campaign of harassment YOU have waged against me since I contacted you for interview in 2009. You refused but then got your knickers in a twist because I interviewed David Farrant instead.” – Trystan Lewis Swale
Where is the EVIDENCE of any harassment from Bishop Seán Manchester, any friend, colleague, or indeed any person remotely known to the bishop?
Bishop Seán Manchester is not interested in Trystan Lewis Swale and it would have largely been due to Swale’s smirking cynicism and dismissive attitude towards Christian believers that any approach to be interviewed by the likes of Swale would have probably been ignored. No record of any approach, however, exists, and where is the evidence of the bishop getting his “knickers in a twist”? That, too, does not exist. It is Swale’s familiar fabricated propagandising and nothing else.
Bishop Seán Manchester has been hounded by Swale for the past five years.
Has the bishop attempted to contact Swale in any form? Absolutely not.
Has Swale attempted to contact the bishop? Yes, he has. Telephone calls have been made to Bishop Seán Manchester, and Swale apparently admits to sending emails to the bishop. This might be true, but Bishop Seán Manchester would not have seen them because, like Hogg, Swale is blocked by the bishop’s Server.
It is quite evident to Trystan Lewis Swale that Bishop Seán Manchester wants nothing to do with him. Yet Swale persists. It is pretty obvious who is stalking whom.
-
“Has the bishop attempted to contact Swale in any form? ”
Yep – right here: BOS is Mr Sean Manchester.
-
I analysed the Manchester book in detail in an essay back in 1991, despite his protests and those of his supporters.
-
Of course there were protestations, you might have had some of his sycophants questioning their beliefs. Without the belief that this really happened Mr Manchester is a horror writer of limited skills, minor appeal and I doubt the determination and sheer bloody-mindedness needed to make it (in my opinion as an avid consumer of almost all sorts of fiction, in vast amounts, for the last forty years).
Strange how much easier it is to sell a bad lie than a well-crafted work of fiction…
-
Manchester’s sycophants seem to frequently share his internet connection.
-
“Farrant associate John Pope stated Thornton was an alias of none other than Anthony Hill. Pope went on to add that it was Manchester who told him this, although he personally believed Thornton never actually existed. ” – Trystan Lewis Swale (“The Highgate Vampire – An Exercise In Deception?”)
“I was never known as ‘Thornton’ but I do know who Farrant based this non-existent character on. He describes ‘Thornton’ as an accountant in his self-published pamphlet, and at the time Farrant knew someone who was an accountant by the name Rob Holt. Far from having any paranormal experiences, Rob Holt was completely cynical and dismissive of anything to do with the supernatural. He was aware of Farrant’s attempt to hoax the public in 1970 and, unlike a handful of other people Farrant knew, refused to become involved when attempts were made by Farrant to enlist his help with fraudulent correspondence to local newspapers.” – Anthony Hill (Facebook group “The Highgate Vampire” – 19 March 2014)
“The claim I informed John Pope that a manufactured person, ie ‘Thornton’ (created by someone who certainly became a thorn in my side), was an alias for Anthony Hill is as preposterous as the allegation, also made by Pope, that Hill and I lived together in Friern Barnet. In actual fact, I have never resided in Friern Barnet, much less have I done so with Anthony Hill. Pope is an absolute imbecile and those who publish or otherwise disseminate such imbecility are little better.” – Bishop Seán Manchester (Response to query raised via Facebook – 20 March 2014)
-
Hi Sean. I guessed it wouldn’t be too long until you appeared here. Cue ‘I’m not Sean’ dull game.
-
I never expected you to actually defend Farrant against a hoax charge by deferring to an account you created to masquerade as Hill, but I guess that’s what happens when things are as convoluted as they are already. “Pope is an absolute imbecile” is also an odd thing for a bishop to say – especially when it’s quoted third person, via the aliases you’re presently posting under.
-
“The inverted pentagram symbol is actually a very old Christian symbol for Winter, which was again derived from an even older Pagan symbol for protection.” – Kirst Mason D’Raven
The pentagram was used in ancient times as a Christian symbol for the five senses or of the five wounds of Christ. A Christian use of the pentangle occurs in the 14th-century English poem Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, in which the symbol decorates the shield of the hero, Gawain. The unnamed poet credits the symbol’s origin to King Solomon, and says the symbol is key to understanding the work. The poet explains that each of the five interconnected points represents a virtue tied to a group of five. Gawain is keen in his five senses, dextrous in his five fingers, faithful to the salvation provided through the Five Wounds of Christ, takes courage from the five joys that Mary had of Jesus, and exemplifies the five virtues of knighthood.
Heinrich Cornelius Agrippa and others perpetuated the popularity of the pentagram as a magic symbol, attributing the five neoplatonic elements to the five points, in typical Renaissance fashion. By the mid-19th century a further distinction had developed amongst occultists regarding the pentagram’s orientation. With a single point upwards it depicted spirit presiding over the four elements of matter, and was essentially “good.” However, the influential writer Eliphas Levi called it evil whenever the symbol appeared the other way up.
“A reversed pentagram, with two points projecting upwards, is a symbol of evil and attracts sinister forces because it overturns the proper order of things and demonstrates the triumph of matter over spirit. It is the goat of lust attacking the heavens with its horns, a sign execrated by initiates.” – Éliphas Lévi (1999) [1896 (translated), 1854 (first published)]. “Transcendental Magic, its Doctrine and Ritual [Dogme et rituel de la haute magie].” Translated by A. E. Waite.
-
Ah – Wikipedia again…http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagram
Heres another – http://mysterioustimes.wordpress.com/2013/11/13/the-pentagram/
-
-
Kirst Mason D’Raven is clearly missing the point. Whether information can be found hither or thither is completely irrelevant. She claimed the “inverted pentagram symbol is actually a very old Christian symbol for Winter, which was again derived from an even older Pagan symbol for protection” when, in fact, according to the expert Éliphas Lévi, a prolific writer on magical ceremonials, “a reversed pentagram, with two points projecting upwards, is a symbol of evil and attracts sinister forces.” Source: “Transcendental Magic, its Doctrine and Ritual [Dogme et rituel de la haute magie]” (1854). Perhaps Kirst Mason D’Raven is claiming to be more of an expert and know more about these things than Éliphas Lévi?
-
Everybody knows a lot more than Eliphas Levi. On account of how he is dead, and died long before the archaeological discoveries which changed the way such symbols are interpreted by people who do not have a occult or religious agenda.
Perhaps you-who-darent-reveal-your-actual-identity would like to try to dispute that?
“Perhaps events would have ended here were it not for the actions of another local man, Sean Manchester. He visited the Hampstead and Highgate Express’s offices, offering his opinion on the figure.” – Trystan Lewis Swale (“The Highgate Vampire – An Exercise In Deception?”)
Gerald Isaaman, editor of the Hampstead & Highgate Express, personally invited Seán Manchester to attend the Hampstead office of the newspaper in order to discuss any interest the British Occult Society might have in the area and its alleged ghostly sightings. But for Isaaman’s invitation, Seán Manchester’s ongoing investigation would not have been revealed across the front page of the 27 February 1970 issue. When Seán Manchester attended the meeting requested by Isaaman in the early evening, he was accompanied by a female companion. Both he and his friend were on their way to attend an opera at Royal Opera House, Covent Garden, and thus were in formal attire. Nobody else was in attendance.
The local vampire legend was discussed when they met. This was in the light of claims of an apparition at the cemetery having been made by someone who admitted he had “no knowledge in this field” and follow-up claims of a similar nature from local correspondents, some of whom were later revealed to be friends of this man.
At the end of the month, or thereabouts, Seán Manchester met this man who had “no knowledge in this field” at Highgate Cemetery where he was shown the location of the alleged sightings. He was not especially impressed by the man’s testimony. A week later, Seán Manchester appeared on television at the invitation of the “Today” programme to discuss the findings of the British Occult Society, vampire folklore and to appeal to dabblers, including the correspondent who had triggered “ghost” sightings in the Hampstead & Highgate Express, to stay away from the cemetery.
Sean, that last paragraph of yours is utter nonsense. You actually told the reporter, Sandra Harris during the Today interview, of David Farrant:
‘He shall approach it [the vampire] with a crucifix – something like this – paralyse it. He shall then sprinkle it with Holy water to stop it in its tracks, and then, with one resounding blow, drive this through its heart until it is truly one of God’s dead and not one of the Devil’s Undead’.
That is hardly a warning for David ‘dabbler’ Farrant to stay away from the cemetery!!!
-
Trystan Lewis Swale is a past-master at taking words out of context by omitting the most important element, ie the warning against the very behaviour described prior.
The media contacted Seán Manchester as soon as the headline story appeared on the front-page of the Hampstead & Highgate Express, 27 February 1970.
Among those to make contact with Seán Manchester within hours of the story breaking was Thames Television who were not especially interested in Farrant.
The programme transmitted in the early evening of Friday 13 March 1970, but was recorded some days beforehand. It featured Seán Manchester as the vampire expert plus a handful of witnesses, one of whom was David Farrant due to the letter he had sent to the editor of a local newspaper.
During the transmission, Seán Manchester warned of the dangers of amateur vampire hunting and identified Farrant as having plans to make a lone foray, armed with a cross and stake, to the graveyard. His warning on the television programme was echoed by the Hampstead & Highgate Express on the s ame day as the transmission, 13 March 1970, which quoted the vampirologist as follows:
“He [David Farrant] goes against our [the British Occult Society executive directorate’s] explicit wish for his own safety. We feel he does not possess sufficient knowledge to exorcise successfully something as powerful or evil as this vampire, and may fall victim as a result. We also issue a similar warning to anyone with likewise intentions.”
-
Yet, despite this warning you proceeded to tell the Thames Television area exactly what David Farrant was about to do, producing vampire hunting props as you did so. Clearly, this was a very clear warning for the television cameras. Get real!
-
Change the record.
How many years of Swale’s life is he prepared to devote to his obsession?
He should spend this time with his family rather than concerning himself with people who want absolutely nothing to with him. Even his neighbours come in for his compulsion to interfere:
“My neighbours are such idiots. I caught him drunk the other month.” (Swale, Facebook, 26 April 2014)
What is wrong with the man? It will all go terribly wrong for him one day if he doesn’t learn to mind his own business.
-
Nice bit of quote mining there, Sean. I guess stopping domestic violence is a compulsion to interfere. If that means there’s something wrong with me, so be it, but I would rather be that than a creepy pervert who posts links to images of my children.
-
-
” I would rather be that than a creepy pervert who posts links to images of my children.” – Trystan Lewis Swale
There is nothing “creepy” about saying what people have said privately and many more have probably thought when viewing his “open to the public” Facebook pages. No images were “posted” by anyone other than Swale himself. A link was provided to where Swale is doing what most people would find inappropriate and irresponsible behaviour, ie publishing images of young children on Facebook.
Swale not only regularly publishes images of his very young children on Facebook, but also uses an icon of himself in a cowled robe redolent of Sir Francis Dashwood of the Hellfire Club against a banner on which an inverted pentagram has at its centre the image of a horned devil which is clearly meant to depict the Evil One.
Taken in context, Trystan Lewis Swale’s Facebook page is very creepy indeed!
-
If you feel that posting pictures of ones own children, and ‘creepy’ images’ is inappropriate, why would you link to them?
-
Umm, Sean. Lots of people post images of their families on Facebook. That isn’t abnormal, but thanks for bringing the openness of those photos to my attention as the situation has now been rectified. The icon of myself in a cowled robe was taken at Corinium Museum in Cirencester, Gloucestershire. They have dress up outfits there, you known, like a lot of museums do. As for the cover banner, if I wanted an image of the ‘Evil One’, I’d have a photo of you on it. You need help, Sean, you really do.
“Lots of people post images of their families on Facebook.” – Trystan Lewis Swale
We are not talking about “lots of people.” We are talking about Swale who publishes images of just his young children, not his family per se, plus images of himself in what can only described as questionable attitudes and outfits.
“As for the cover banner, if I wanted an image of the ‘Evil One’, I’d have a photo of [Bishop Manchester] on it.” – Trystan Lewis Swale
Yet Swale’s “cover banner” depicted an inverted pentagram, as used by Satanists, with an image of the Devil at its centre. If this is not symbolic of evil, what is it?
It’s the Sigil of Baphomet, and as any dithering numpty knows, a symbol only ever represents what the person who uses it want it to.
The Symbol was originally created for Eliphas Lévi’s Dogme et Rituel de la haute magie c1855/56, where the shape of the inverted pentagram symbol is likened to the shape of a goats head. Sadly, Levi didn’t manage to make it to his ordainment. If he had, he may have learned that the inverted pentagram symbol is actually a very old Christian symbol for Winter, which was again derived from an even older Pagan symbol for protection. I use the term pagan here in its truest sense, i.e referring to non-Christian religion, not New Age Paganism.
The symbol is used by Satanists, but then again the Sun-Wheel or Swastika is used by Buddhists. Doesn’t make it evil unless you choose to interpret it as evil.
It’s just as Sean chooses to use the trappings of his third rate, meaningless, schismatic non-official Old Catholic Church title of Bishop to associate himself with Christianity. It doesn’t stop him being a vindictive pervert.
Hang on. Am I an atheist or a satanist? Make your mind up.
“Hang on. Am I an atheist or a satanist? Make your mind up.” – Trystan Lewis Swale
An atheist who likes the trappings of Satanism, as evinced by the symbolism and groups Swale has joined on Facebook.
He actually believes in nothing outside the material universe. Hence, he is an atheist.
Ha ha! Logic was never your strong point. Even if I was an atheist or a satanist, so what? What’s it got to do with you?
“Hardly the actions of someone who makes such an issue of their status, albeit as a (excommunicated) Bishop in a splintered incarnation of the Old Catholic Church, unaffiliated with the official organisation.” – Trystan Lewis Swale
http://thehighgatevampire.co.uk/leavesthatwither/2014/04/29/pray-for-him/
“It’s just as Sean chooses to use the trappings of his third rate, meaningless, schismatic non-official Old Catholic Church title of Bishop to associate himself with Christianity. It doesn’t stop him being a vindictive pervert.” – Trystan Lewis Swale
Regarding Swale’s libellous allegations (more grist to the mill of evidence to support complaints of a harassing vendetta by Swale) that Bishop Seán Manchester is a “vindictive pervert” and has been “excommunicated,” the following facts are offered:
Illtyd Thomas claimed to have laicised (but not excommunicated) 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.
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 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.
Any insinuation that Bishop Seán Manchester is anything other than a bona fide bishop should not be entertained with any degree of seriousness.
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
You’ve missed the point. I haven’t claimed you are not a bishop. *sigh*
By the way, you do realise that when you browse the internet you leave a digital fingerprint called an IP number. I can see that you’re commenting from a connection provided by the same company that your real identity uses. Given the statistical odds of this, and with the police able to request this information from that company, I would suggest the supposedly hounded bishop would have his behind smacked for enabling representatives to post from his connection, in communication with the alleged stalker. You’ve not thought this through, have you?
And of course you’ve participated in the occult. You’re forgetting your dress up games as The Magister, helping David in a ritual. And that article you wrote on the magical duel – Lol – with John Pope. Plus that stuff that appeared in Bourre’s book of your involvement with so called red magic. You’re ill.
Anyhow, must dash. Guess I’ll be seeing you in court. I shan’t hold my breath, oh great enabler of perverts.
“If you feel that posting pictures of ones own children, and ‘creepy’ images’ is inappropriate, why would you link to them?” – Kirst Mason D’Raven
We linked to Trystan Lewis Swale’s Facebook photo albums. Most of the images were all sorts of oddities, including images of his young children (though these made up a very small number of the whole). We did not link specifically to Swale’s children. No less revealing are the photographs of Swale himself and his preoccupation with sinister symbolism, including symbols used by Satanists.
Yes, you linked to them, Sean, having highlighted they were open to perverts. In my book that makes you complicit with those perverts. Sean Manchester: pervert. Then again that seems to go hand in hand with some Catholic bishops.
“And of course [Bishop Manchester] participated in the occult. … Plus that stuff that appeared in Bourre’s book of [his] involvement with so called red magic. [He’s] ill.” – Trystan Lewis Swale
The dramatic reconstruction picture of an occult ritual was used as bait in the 1970s (whilst covert operations being carried out by Bishop Manchester in tandem with the broadcast media and church organisations were in progress) to gain the confidence of Satanists who needed a lot of convincing before they would open up.
Jean-Paul Bourre (a notorious French Satanist) took the bait, as did a number of others, and published the picture. This led to a period of undercover work which was to prove invaluable to those wanting evidence about this sinister underworld. Bishop Manchester ceased all such operations in the wake of his book “From Satan To Christ” (1988) being published and media revelations about his undercover work being made around the same time. It was always his intention to cease such operations eventually, and it became impossible for him to continue after his open co-operation with certain church groups and working with ITV’s “World in Action.”
Some of the people he took the trouble to convince were charlatans like Farrant and harmless eccentrics like Pope. Others he came to know were genuine in their beliefs but did not pose an obvious or serious danger. He met just about all the major figures in the world of witchcraft and ceremonial magic back then, but Bourre was particularly unpleasant, being someone who regularly sacrificed animals.
Jean-Paul Bourre is seen performinng a satanic ceremony (sacrificing a cockerel) at Père-Lachaise cemetery, Paris, in this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYtYAudHH0s
And here he is with David Farrant in 1985:
So, if that is the case, why did Iltyd Thomas revoke your title? Because of involvement with the occult. And, again, the magical duel. The magister fun and games.
Bloody magical duels now?? Seriously…??
Yes, seriously! Crazy stuff. Actually, why are we even bothering to answer this ludicrous fantasist? It is plain to anyone who can read that he’s a wand short of a magic set.
You’re right Trystan. From hereon I will answer no more questions until British Occult Society reveal their true identity 😉
Mainly because, if they aren’t actually Manchester I see no reason why they are here at all. I’m sure Manchester could fight his own corner, if he felt the need to.
You’re right. Given how he’s now started dribbling over Barbara, perhaps you should ban him?
I’m sure whoever it is will have a very good reason for harassing the people on this thread. At least, they better have..
I see that BOS is posting using the internet service of a certain company; the one that other identities, including those of Sean Manchester also post from. Given that this company has a <10% market share, I find this curious. Probably just coincidence. 😉
Im sure a bringer of enlightenment such as BOS has no need to cower in the shadows, and will bestow the knowledge of their true identity upon us all forthwith.
Either that or they will cease harrassing ALL the commenters on this thread.
“The inverted pentagram symbol is actually a very old Christian symbol for Winter, which was again derived from an even older Pagan symbol for protection.” – Kirst Mason D’Raven
The pentagram was used in ancient times as a Christian symbol for the five senses or of the five wounds of Christ. A Christian use of the pentangle occurs in the 14th-century English poem Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, in which the symbol decorates the shield of the hero, Gawain. The unnamed poet credits the symbol’s origin to King Solomon, and says the symbol is key to understanding the work. The poet explains that each of the five interconnected points represents a virtue tied to a group of five. Gawain is keen in his five senses, dextrous in his five fingers, faithful to the salvation provided through the Five Wounds of Christ, takes courage from the five joys that Mary had of Jesus, and exemplifies the five virtues of knighthood.
Heinrich Cornelius Agrippa and others perpetuated the popularity of the pentagram as a magic symbol, attributing the five neoplatonic elements to the five points, in typical Renaissance fashion. By the mid-19th century a further distinction had developed amongst occultists regarding the pentagram’s orientation. With a single point upwards it depicted spirit presiding over the four elements of matter, and was essentially “good.” However, the influential writer Eliphas Levi called it evil whenever the symbol appeared the other way up.
“A reversed pentagram, with two points projecting upwards, is a symbol of evil and attracts sinister forces because it overturns the proper order of things and demonstrates the triumph of matter over spirit. It is the goat of lust attacking the heavens with its horns, a sign execrated by initiates.” – Éliphas Lévi (1999) [1896 (translated), 1854 (first published)]. “Transcendental Magic, its Doctrine and Ritual [Dogme et rituel de la haute magie].” Translated by A. E. Waite.
-
“It’s the Sigil of Baphomet, and as any dithering numpty knows, a symbol only ever represents what the person who uses it want it to.” – Kirst Mason D’Raven
The Sigil of Baphomet is the official insignium of the Church of Satan, and is trademarked by the organization. Variations are also used by several other organisations, usually those associated with Satanism and the Left-hand Path.
http://www.churchofsatan.com/history-sigil-of-baphomet.php
Since 1856, the name Baphomet has been associated with a “Sabbatic Goat” image drawn by Eliphas Lévi, which contains binary elements representing the “sum total of the universe” (eg male and female, good and evil etc.). However, Baphomet has been connected with Satanism as well. The Baphomet of Lévi was to become an important figure within the cosmology of Thelema, the mystical system established by Aleister Crowley in the early twentieth century. For Crowley, Baphomet is further a representative of the spiritual nature of the spermatozoa while also being symbolic of the “magical child” produced as a result of sex magic. As such, Baphomet represents the union of opposites, especially as mystically personified in Chaos and Babalon combined and biologically manifested with the sperm and egg united in the zygote. Lévi’s Baphomet is the source of the later Tarot image of the Devil in the Rider-Waite design. The concept of a downward-pointing pentagram on its forehead was enlarged upon by Lévi in his discussion of the Goat of Mendes arranged within such a pentagram, which he contrasted with the microcosmic man arranged within a similar but upright pentagram. The actual image of a goat in a downward-pointing pentagram first appeared in the 1897 book “La Clef de la Magie Noire” by Stanislas de Guaita. It was this image that was later adopted as the official symbol — called the Sigil of Baphomet — of the Church of Satan, and continues to be used among Satanists.
-
Did you provide a link to the original source of this quote? (i.e Wikipedia)
“It’s the Sigil of Baphomet, and as any dithering numpty knows, a symbol only ever represents what the person who uses it want it to.” – Kirst Mason D’Raven
The Sigil of Baphomet is the official insignium of the Church of Satan, and is trademarked by the organisation. Variations are also used by several other organisations associated with Satanism. Yet all Kirst Mason D’Raven can say is “Did you provide a link to the original source of this quote?”
Did she not take on board that the Sigil of Baphomet, as any “dithering numpty” should know, is a satanic symbol which represents those who either are Satanists or can barely be distinguished from the diabolical, eg those on the Left-hand Path? It obviously represents the person who uses it and their intent, but what sort of intent would a person who employs it have outside of causing harm?
Hence Baphomet is used to represent the Devil in the Rider-Waite Tarot pack. In the Rider-Waite deck, the Devil is derived in part from Eliphas Levi’s famous illustration “Baphomet” in his “Dogme et Rituel de la Haute Magie” (1855).
View the card at this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:RWS_Tarot_15_Devil.jpg
You are in serious need of mental health services. You’re talking about yourself in the third person, hiding behind internet socks, and making an utter fool of yourself. You’re not a bishop, dude. You’re a sad old man who used up his 15 minutes 40 years ago and is now desperately clinging to his dubious glory days by inventing multiple internet personalities and tilting at digits windmills of your own creation. We all know who you really are. I see a nursing home in your near future.
Hi Sean “British Occult Society” Manchester,
No doubt you’ve decided to write here after Trystan exposed the underhanded why you’d “replied” to this elsewhere. See: http://thehighgatevampire.co.uk/leavesthatwither/2014/04/26/trystan-3/
According to Issamann, himself, he played the story “for laughs”. So your attire and companionship is irrelevant to the account and why it was published in the first place. Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that your story about meeting Issamann is true, he would not have known you had you not approached him first. After all, your were an unknown and the earliest mention, anywhere, of the British Occult Society (the name you’re posting under, even though you said the group disbanded in 1988), was the same February 27, 1970 article you alluded to.
The “vampire legend” you speak of, is one you invented; there is no evidence for any vampire “legends” in the area, prior your account and the one you concocted with Keith Mclean and Elizabeth Wojdyla.
The person who had “no knowledge in this field,” was your former friend, David Farrant. It’s ok, you can say his name – goodness knows you’ve spent enough ink discussing him already. Also, it’s quite apparent you knew him a while before the “Why Do the Foxes Die?” story was written up. Note, that article talks about your meet in the cemetery, not the *first* time you’d ever met.
However, if you’re (rightly) deriding his account, yet admit your case was built off his (after all, Farrant publicly instigated the spectral accounts in the first place), then you’ve just blown the floor out of your own case, too. The acquaintances Farrant had via the people who responded to his letter were also partly shared by you, including one “Peter Lord,” which was written with no disclosure of his connection to you, even though it was sent from your parents’ place – indeed, it’s likely “Peter Lord” didn’t exist, either – it was just another one of the countless aliases you’ve used over the years, including the one you’re currently using here.
So, it’s clear that your involvement and Farrant’s is much more closely connected than you’re letting on. It’s no wonder you have to resort to the usual aliases to proper criticism of the case, as per Trystan’s excellent piece.
And a warning to the moderator of this blog, Manchester has a history with these sockpuppet shenanigans, as attested by his former friend, Kevin Chesham, see: http://kevchesham.blogspot.com.au/p/kevin-chesham-autobiography-first.html and he’s often done it to me, too, including creating a blog intended to stalk and harass me. See: http://thevampirologist.wordpress.com/2013/11/28/automattic-for-the-people/
He often deliberately parlays discussions on the case into flame wars, so the discussions in question can be deliberately “shut down” by the moderators who’d rather avoid any feuding. In that way, he succeeds in stifling legitimate criticism of his claims. He will no doubt try to turn the tables by suggesting I am a troll, stalker, harasser, etc. which also reveals his tendency to steal other people’s criticisms of him. Nonetheless, there are reams of evidence attesting to his true character, strategies and tendency toward sockpuppetry.
I have experienced it first hand, many, many times and I have been writing about the case for about 8 years.
-
“Kevin Chesham’s incitements and lies have only been spread via the internet by a small handful of people whom I largely identify [at the link below]. They all have their own reasons for doing this, but are they merely random detractors with an axe to grind, or could there be something more sinister afoot?” – Bishop Seán Manchester
Link: http://kevin-chesham.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/connections.html
-
Sean, quoting yourself in third person does not work in favour. Also, Kevin has the photographic evidence to back it up. Your right wing tastes are also attested, as per your pilfering material from the BNP blog, etc.
You misrepresented why that link has been shared, too. It’s not necessarily by those with an “axe to grind,” but by people disturbed by just how deep your hatred runs. Not only do you stalk and harass people – as you’re doing here – but you’re also a Nazi lover, too. As if you couldn’t stoop any lower.
-
A statement made by Bishop Seán Manchester at the time of Chesham’s allegation:
“I personally believe a turning point for Kevin Chesham was him having a stroke just prior to his time in New Zealand and association with Kerry Bolton. Strokes can cause complete and often devastating changes in personality. This certainly happened where Kevin Chesham is concerned. I hardly recognised him from the person I had known, meeting him only very occasionally, down the years. Had anyone asked me if I thought Kevin Chesham was an ideological Fascist or a National Socialist in the first three decades of my knowing him, I would have said definitely not, but if the same people were to have asked me the same question in the last handful of years, I would have been obliged to answer in the affirmative.
“I do not judge people by their beliefs, opinions and ideas. It is how they behave and how true they are that matters most. If I appear to be attacking Kevin Chesham it is not because of any beliefs or opinions he holds. It is because of his behaviour, which includes bearing false witness against me and lying in the full knowledge that he is lying. His actions, therefore, are made a thousand times worse because he does not believe in his own rectitude. Had I known what I have come to know about him and his wife in recent years, I would obviously not have provided either of them with character references for employment. Neither are especially intelligent. Kevin Chesham is poorly educated and his employment at local government leisure establishments has not been anything to really become much concerned over, but the thought of Beverley Mason teaching children, much less being a head teacher, is enough to send a shudder down anyone’s spine.
“For the record, I have at no time owed allegiance to any political party. The only time I stood as a prospective candidate in the political process, which was at local government level, was on an independent platform on the single issue of preserving a woodland cemetery that formed part of the Great Northern London Cemetery. This did not involve party politics; though I was supported at the time by the then Ecology Party which later evolved into the Green Party, and various individuals of all political backgrounds. My other campaigning against nuclear energy, nuclear weapons, the arms trade and such wars as my country deemed fit to engage itself in attracted people from all parts of the political spectrum and none. I have personally known people, even leaders, at both extremes of party politics and quite a few in the middle. All attempts to involve me in party politics in the past have utterly failed. I have absolutely no faith in the political system, a view held more now than ever before by many people, and suspect I would be found unacceptable to most parties making an approach as my allegiance is not to Caesar but to God. Moreover, I would not want to be found acceptable to those who are driven by power, greed and corruption as I believe are the majority of politicians. This has been my position all along.
“We are probably all ‘political,’ however, in the sense that we hold opinions that make us so, but this is a far cry from belonging to a political party. I was physically attacked by National Front thugs on Christmas Eve in 1981 whilst holding a public ‘Fast for Peace’ vigil in Finchley, London. Chesham and his wife would have folk believe I canvassed for the National Front. This is a falsehood fed to him by David Farrant who has been making that malicious allegation for the past decade or so. Anyone checking the record will find no evidence of me ever having supported or belonging to the National Front or, for that matter, any other political party.
“I have always opposed bigotry and ultra-nationalism such as evinced by those who hate other races for no other reason than they belong to that race. Not every single person in such a party is necessarily a racial bigot, but many are, which I personally find unacceptable. I love people of all races and enjoy the diversity of mankind. I also want to preserve and protect my own culture and heritage, not least its Faith.”
Full rebuttal with evidence is at this link: http://kevin-chesham.blogspot.co.uk/
-
Also, on September 13, 2013, you said:
“For the past thirteen years I have been reducing my appearances and have purposely not released any new material of a literary nature with view to entering a more private existence. I have always been a private person at heart, but events throughout my life have conspired to prevent this and thwarted any attempt to be private.
“What most brought me to public attention were the television and radio programmes I regularly appeared on and also the books and documentary films associated with topics which hold the public imagination in thrall. It is for that reason I have not submitted a book for publication since the beginning of the 21st century. Likewise, I have scaled back my broadcasts in the media to a point where I no longer make them. I ceased giving interviews to the print media decades ago and only then in quality magazines. Moreover, it will soon be three years since I declared I am no longer prepared to provide interviews on the Highgate case. What there was to say has already been said many times over. I found myself answering the same questions again and again; questions which frequently already have the answers provided in my published account.
“One of the problems, I quickly came to realise many years ago, is that interviewers, regardless of the subject, simply do not know the right questions and the questions are every bit as important as the answers.
“I am still having to regularly turn down television and radio interview requests, along with a plethora of other invitations to partake in projects which would maintain this perception of me being a public figure, which, I accept, is exactly what I have been for the majority of my life. Yet what made me so is now in the past.
“The concomitants of being a public figure have slowly eroded over the last thirteen years to a point where I stand at the threshhold of finally achieving meaningful privacy. Hence, in three months I shall step over that threshhold and become a private person. This will not affect my episcopal duties, sacerdotal ministry, art and music etc, but any involvement in secular preoccupations and the expression of views on same in the public hemisphere shall altogether cease.”
Source: http://therightreverendseanmanchester.blogspot.com.au/2013/09/after-three-months.html
Not only does this reveal your status as a public figure, but it also makes you a liar: not only have you *not* stopped posting, but you continue to do so under aliases.
In the meantime, I’m looking forward to an apology for your several years of harassment and stalking. After all, it’s the least I can expect from one who prides themselves on being a bishop – or at least someone who makes a big deal over a title they acquired but does not uphold.
-
Anthony Hogg, an unemployed man who lives in Melbourne, Australia, has been stalking and harassing Bishop Manchester on the internet ever since he was expelled from a forum several years ago for refusing to stop posting about David Farrant whom the membership wanted to hear no more about. Hogg, who usually hides behind a demonic mask, immediately began to attack the bishop after his expulsion and started opening numerous forums, blogs and boards with a common aim and title (lifted from the headline of a news feature about Bishop Manchester in the Hampstead & Highgate Express, 27 February 1970).
Anthony Hogg’s theme is always the same and he appears to many outsiders as a totally manic individual who is obsessed with the bishop and events that occurred on the other side of the world long before before Hogg was born. Hogg is not just pathologically obsessed with Bishop Manchester and the bishop’s adversary. He allows himself so easily to be drawn into doing precisely what the Farrant clique want, ie violating and abusing Bishop Manchester. David Farrant is probably a lost cause and beyond help. One could almost pity such a pathetic creature. Anthony Hogg is someone totally outside the four and a half decades’ old Highgate Cemetery saga who decided to insinuate himself into latter-day arguments long after the history itself had reached a conclusion. His attitude towards Farrant is perhaps more understandable, but he allows himself to be willingly manipulated and uses Farrant’s propaganda as if it was his own. In being manipulated by Farrant, Hogg posts libellous material about Bishop Manchester which is equal to anything the Farrant coterie resort to at the height of their malice. In fact, Anthony Hogg frequently uses antipathetic sources and seems to take immense pleasure regurgitating David Farrant’s unsubstantiated garbage about Bishop Manchester. There is something deeply disturbing about Anthony Hogg who is patently a stalker with malicious intent and clearly someone with deep issues, possibly a narcissitic personality disorder, ie an inflated sense of self-importance, need for admiration, extreme self-involvement, and lack of empathy for others.
Hogg’s principal blog was disabled by WordPress for repeated offences that included defamation and illegally infringing Bishop Seán Manchester’s lawfully owned copyright material. Such violations occured on multiple occasions over a number of years. He has now turned to other services to continue his trolling. On one of his alternate blogs he uploaded most of what was on his suspended WordPress blog, minus the infringed images which he could not access. That did not stop him uploading freshly stolen images. Hogg deviously registered this new blog in the name of UK resident Trystan Lewis Swale, an atheist who likes to attack those who hold religious and particularly supernatural beliefs. Swale has conspired with an infamous figure convicted of satanic crimes to try to discredit Bishop Seán Manchester on his hostile podcasts. He continues to this day to post extremely abusive and derogatory remarks about the Bishop on Facebook and elsewhere. Anthony Hogg (who has never been to the UK) arranged to have his blog registered using a British-based Server with the help of Trystan Lewis Swale. Swale describes himself as a “paranormal and Fortean investigator,” but in reality is a hardened sceptic who dismisses the paranormal out-of-hand and derides anyone who does not. This replacement blog lasted a matter of days due to Hogg and Swale refusing to remove two stolen images of Bishop Manchester (taken long before either of them were born) and being unable to prove, as they had falsely claimed, that the pictures were their own copyright.
Trystan Swale and Anthony Hogg somehow feel they have the right to steal photographs exclusively owned by Bishop Seán Manchester and illegally publish them to incite hatred using false and derogatory attributions. And if the Bishop dares to recover his own property by issuing a legal take-down notice these two malcontents consider it to be “harassment.” Such is the behaviour of mindless trolls who are obsessed with someone they do not know.
Anthony Hogg has adopted a variety of pseudonyms in the past, including The Inquisitive One, The Overseer, Amateur Vampirolgist and tnuocalucard (“Count Dracula” spelt backwards). These days he is arrogant enough to use his real name, but he goes to considerable lengths to protect his exact whereabouts to prevent prosecution for stalking, harassment and inciting hatred against a public figure. Hogg has gone so far as to publish a UK address in full (offered in the past specifically for people wanting to receive signed copies of the Bishop’s books). The excuse given is that Hogg found it on the internet. His dissemination of the address was not an act of benevolence, however, because it appeared in the context of a stream of vitriol and malicious allegations against the person with whom the address is associated. The address is no longer where Hogg found it because the Bishop is now a private individual, but remains on the blog belonging to Hogg.
A typical example of the exceptionally offensive manner in which the self-styled “Baptist” Hogg hypocritically and abusively refers to Bishop Seán Manchester comes from his disabled blog:
.
“I’m not going to disclose the identity of this potty prelate, wanker, total cock and blatant hypocrite. On an unrelated note, in the lead up to my blog’s closure, I was subjected to repeated DMCA takedown notices issued by Sean Manchester.”Unsurprisingly, the blog on which Anthony Hogg posted the foul-mouthed comments was suspended. Within days he had transferred this abuse, word for word, to yet another blog where it still remains.
-
Sean, you’ve lifted the bulk of your comment from your own blog, see: http://friendsofbishopseanmanchester.blogspot.com.au/2010/10/anthony-hogg.html You’ve also done exactly what I said you would: resort to ad hominems. Time to address them, to set the record straight:
– It’s not at all relevant to discussions at hand, but I actually do have a job.
– I was actually expelled from your forums, in 2006, for starting what you called a “rival forum”, even though it didn’t actually run in opposition to yours. Why did I start it? Because you ceased interforum discussions between Farrant and his friends. Why did those discussions take place at all? Because you kept copy-pasting and “responding” to their comments from their forums. I created mine so both sides could discuss matters, something you prohibited on your own forum. Personally, I don’t see the point in endlessly banging on about someone, but blocking their right of reply, which is why I did what I did. Indeed, I invited both sides to participate on neutral ground. My reward? You banned me from your forums, with no warning: one day, I found that I simply couldn’t log in anymore. You joined my forum as “DennisCrawford1” to give me the scoop as to why, and you mentioned me starting a “rival forum” under that name.
As to the “membership wanted to hear no more about”, that’s not even true, either. And it hasn’t even stopped you banging on about Farrant, regardless, as you’ve been doing here.
– Yes, the title of my forum was derived from that headline. I specifically mentioned that in my forum’s “about” section. I also use it for my blog’s title: http://dawwih.blogspot.com.au/ what you’ve neglected to mention, is that you ripped it off (identity theft is another one of your recurring practices), under your other alias, “Vampirologist.” See: http://highgatevampire.blogspot.com.au/
– Where I was born is irrelevant. What matters is the evidence for your claims, which, as shown by Trystan (who was born in the same country as you, no less), is incredibly dodgy.
– “Hogg is not just pathologically obsessed with Bishop Manchester and the bishop’s adversary”, etc. What you mean is, I critique both yours and Farrant’s claims. I write about the case, I can’t *not* mention either of you. Warping that into “violating and abusing you” is a classic trick dodgy people like yourself pull, in order to attack my character at the expense of what I actually say, but in your case, it’s also part of a smear campaign you’ve run against me for several years. As you can see, it’s not working.
– “There is something deeply disturbing about Anthony Hogg who is patently a stalker with malicious intent and clearly someone with deep issues, possibly a narcissitic personality disorder” – I think there’s something deeply disturbing about a supposedly Christian bishop, who’d refer to me in that way. Also, the “narcissitic personality disorder” is actually something I first suggested about you (your usernames, specifically). See: http://dawwih.blogspot.com.au/2011/04/hatchet-job.html As usual, you steal my criticism, then flip it back to me. I think you’re quite likely a sociopath, though, as you certainly match the traits. I agree with Trystan; you should get checked out.
– My WordPress blog was shut down because you kept issuing DMCA copyright notices against it, during my coverage of your claims about the Highgate Vampire’s identity (which you ripped off from somewhere else, no less). WordPress allowed me to counter-claim, but it required me to hand you my personal information, which, as seen from your tendency to stalk and harass, I didn’t think was a good thing to do. So, I declined. They had to follow due process, and shut me down. Nonetheless, they were certainly sympathetic to my plight – which is why they allowed me to save my blog, so it could be hosted elsewhere. I wound up hosting it on Trystan’s website.
Naturally, you targeted that site, too, with more DMCAs and practically shit yourself when I unravelled your Nazi hoax (which palming off your identity onto a guy who died in 1982). Once again, WordPress were quite sympathetic. Indeed, they even forwarded me a link to one of their posts…about people who abuse the DMCA process in order to censor their critics.
In terms of “violating copyright”, I use such material under fair use terms, i.e. criticism and whatnot. Meanwhile, you steal material on a regular basis, without even citing your sources. See: http://dawwih.blogspot.com.au/search/label/Plagiarism Indeed, as Trystan’s pointed out, even your own Highgate Vampire story is an obvious rip-off.
– Yes, I have used pseudonyms, including the The Inquisitive One, The Overseer (a username you stole, too), Amateur Vampirolgist, but “tnuocalucard” was hardly a pseudonym: I used it in conjuction with my real name, in an Amazon review I wrote several years ago.
– The UK address I published on my blog (found in the footnote of this entry: http://dawwih.blogspot.com.au/2010/11/reconciliation-attempt-mk-2.html ) was a business address – your vanity press, Gothic Press. I got the address from your eBay listings and discussed it in context. Meanwhile, you have tried to post my home address online for several years. In terms of being private, that’s not true, either: after all, you’re still posting on here under a pseudoymn and you still run public Facebook groups with your real name and alias, “Vebjørn Hästehufvud.”
– I have formerly identified myself as a Baptist, but I now consider myself to be non-denominational. The quote you posted was not one I’d written, but my follow-up was admittedly cheeky. The blog wasn’t suspended for those comments. In fact, it didn’t even appear on my suspended blog. It appears here, in an entry in which I discuss you having my blog shutdown: http://dawwih.blogspot.com.au/2013/01/downfall.html
.
But in terms of abuse, vitirol, etc. one need not look any further than your own vile comments here, which you’re posting under an alias. Also, you’re a (supposedly) *Christian bishop*. I’m still waiting for my apology, in the meantime, Sean.
-
British Occult Society – You clearly seem to like the sound of your own voice there – may I ask why you seem so antagonistic towards the author and others on this post?
-
The antagonism is self-evident in the author of the article and his collaborators present on this thread, all of whom clearly like the sound of their voices. Does Trystan Lewis Swale and his cronies really expect no rebuttal to the attacks being made on a person they have pursued relentlessly for some considerable time?
They came here to set out their stall which is transparently anti-Bishop Seán Manchester. The British Occult Society followed to offer alternative comment, refutation and some sort of context to the nonsense being propagated by them.
-
The article which we discuss here is merely refuting the outlandish claims of a historical case – I see no problem with either authors opinions.
I do, however notice that there was no animosity displayed on this thread until you yourself ‘set your stall out’, which leads me to believe you are the one that is in fact ‘hounding’ these individuals.Seriously, dude – if you are going to claim you are a vampire killer and have no substantiating evidence to back up your claims, you need to accept people are going to have an opinion.
-
“I do, however notice that there was no animosity displayed on this thread until you …” – Kirst Mason D’Raven
Really? The British Occult Society first posted on this thread on April 26th with corrections to the false attributions made by John Pope that were repeated by Trystan Lewis Swale in his article.
Take a look at comments made by others prior to that date. Here’s a sample:
“I analysed the Manchester book in detail in an essay back in 1991, despite his protests and those of his supporters.” – Ramsey Campbell (April 15th)
“Of course there were protestations, you might have had some of his sycophants questioning their beliefs. Without the belief that this really happened Mr Manchester is a horror writer of limited skills, minor appeal and I doubt the determination and sheer bloody-mindedness needed to make it (in my opinion as an avid consumer of almost all sorts of fiction, in vast amounts, for the last forty years). Strange how much easier it is to sell a bad lie than a well-crafted work of fiction…” – ph1lb (April 15th)
“Manchester’s sycophants seem to frequently share his internet connection.” – Trystan Lewis Swale (April 15th)
Now, Kirst Mason D’Raven, are you seriously claiming these comments made eleven days before the British Occult Society ever showed its face on this thread are not displaying a degree of animosity towards Bishop Seán Manchester?
-
really? you’re going to start this with me? lol…
-
No, I believe they are showing a degree of disdain for this alleged case though – you know? the case we are SUPPOSED to be discussing?
-
-
“Seriously, dude – if [Bishop Seán Manchester] is going to claim [he] is a vampire killer [sic] and has no substantiating evidence to back up [his] claims, [he] needs to accept people are going to have an opinion.” – Kirst Mason D’Raven
People are obviously going to have opinions on all manner of things and will express them, but that is worlds apart from someone beings stalked for five years by the author of the article on “Mysterious Times” and twice as long by Swale’s Australian collaborator from whom the John Pope falsehoods were gleaned.
There is something we need to establish before proceeding any further, Kirst Mason D’Raven, and that is who we are and who Bishop Seán Manchester is. We are a very small remnant of the British Occult Society that was presided over by Bishop Seán Manchester in the previous century. We remain in close contact with the bishop because we are his friends. Bishop Seán Manchester is someone who has exorcised predatory demons, commonly referred to as vampires, but this does not involve “killing” anything because such manifestations cannot be “killed.”
http://britishoccultsociety.blogspot.co.uk/2011/09/president-of-british-occult-society_26.html
It has been suggested to you by two of those commenting on this thread that some people are “sockpuppets.” Anthony Hill and Vebjørn Hästehufvud have been identified in this respect. So, why not meet Anthony and Vebjørn, ask them whether they are “sockpuppets,” and decide for yourself? This can be arranged in a couple of months’ time over a weekend at the bishop’s retreat. It might seem a bit of a trek from Sheffield, but perhaps you visit the south of England from time to time? There will also be an opportunity for you to meet and talk to the bishop about anything you like, provided the occasion is not treated as an interview and remains private.
Bishop Seán Manchester gave his final public interview on the Highgate Vampire case over three years ago. He spoke for over two hours as three cameras recorded the historic occasion for posterity on the forty-first anniversary of the time he first brought to public attention the existence of a contagion at Highgate Cemetery. Bishop Seán Manchester has contributed to literally hundreds of interviews and television documentaries about his mysterious investigations. However, in early 2011, he felt he had said everything there is to say about the case. Enough is enough. He will talk to individuals in private about matters that interest them, but, outside of private conversations, he is no longer interested.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Us6wtIIcYpU
http://vampirologist.blogspot.co.uk/2011/02/last-highgate-vampire-interview.html
“This place where we are now is really a battlefield between the powers of good and the forces of darkness.” – Seán Manchester (speaking at Highgate Cemetery on BBC television’s 24 Hours, 15 October 1970)
-
That means he fancies you, Kirst.
Sean, you’re forgetting that Anthony has exposed the entire Vebjorn and BOS sock puppetry out of the water. The article is on my website as part of a post called ‘Byrne or Bullshitter’.
Plus it is funny how Sean and all of his cronies access the internet from an Orange Home Broadband connection in Bournemouth. Lol!
-
…So you aren’t Bishop Manchester then?
Then why are you here wasting my time?
To be honest there is a fair amount of antagonism on my part to Bishop Manchester, exactly the same amount of antagonism I have for many others who peddle such second rate drivel as fact rather than fiction.
Thanks, Kirst. That is indeed the case. Sean has been hounding me since 2009 because I dared interview his rival vampire hunter, David Farrant, for the skeptical podcast I ran at the time. The same courtesy was extended to Sean but he refused amidst a monumental strop. I’m just the latest in a long line of people to have attracted the ire of this online stalker. I hope he will have more respect for you.
-
Trystan Lewis Swale is fond of making allegations without providing a shred of evidence to back them up. Bishop Seán Manchester is not interested in Swale and it would have largely been due to Swale’s smirking cynicism and dismissive attitude towards Christian believers like himself that any approach to be interviewed by the likes of Swale would have probably been ignored. No record of any approach, however, exists, and where is the evidence of the “monumental strop” Swale talks about? That, too, does not exist. It is Swale’s propagandising and nothing else.
Bishop Seán Manchester has been hounded by Swale for the past five years.
Look at the facts:
Has Bishop Seán Manchester attempted to contact Swale in any form? No, he has not.
Has Swale attempted to contact the bishop? Yes, he has. Two telephone calls have been made to Bishop Seán Manchester who took the first in 2013, but not the second when Swale’s Cheltenham number was recognised and the call ignored. Calls are now intercepted and recorded. The police are aware of the situation.
Swale claims he has sent emails to the bishop. This might be true, but Bishop Seán Manchester would not have seen them because Swale is blocked by his Server.
It is quite evident to Trystan Lewis Swale that Bishop Seán Manchester wants nothing to do with him. Yet Swale persists. Who, would you say, is stalking whom?
-
Sean, I challenge you to produce the evidence I have called you more than once. You won’t be able to because it never happened.
If the police are involved then why have they not spoken to me? Why have they not advised you against having any contact with me? I’ve hounded you so much, and you are so concerned, you’re still on here talking to me. Lol!
Answer me one thing. Do you actually believe this crap you’re spouting?
-
Well, lets look at the facts.. (and just to clarify, by facts I mean events which have actually transpired and not things that are manufactured to suit ones cause or purpose).. Tristan, Anthony, Ph1lb, et al. were discussing an article on a blog which has no connection or affilliation with yourself. You have found your way here without invitation and, apparently, with the intention of furthering your dispute with at least two of the people here. Need I say more?
-
“If the police are involved then why have they not spoken to me?” – Trystan Lewis Swale
Should the police arrive at a point where they talk to Swale it will be to caution him or possibly arrest him. At the moment they are monitoring the situation following complaints made under provisions of the Protection from Harassment Act. The normal procedure in these circumstances is that evidence over a period of time is accrued, examined and, if need be, forwarded to the Crown Prosecution Service.
-
Sean, the way it works is that the police tell the complainant to have no contact with the alleged stalker. How do I know this? I’ve friends who are police officers.
-
-
“The way it works is that the police tell the complainant to have no contact with the alleged stalker. How do I know this? I’ve friends who are police officers.” – Trystan Lewis Swale
1. Despite claims to the contrary by his harasser, Bishop Seán Manchester has had absolutely no contact with Trystan Lewis Swale bar the occasion he received an unsolicited telephone call to his ex-directory number about which he could do very little. How Swale obtained the bishop’s unlisted, ex-directory number might be a question this Cheltenham stalker will have to answer at some future juncture.
2. Bishop Seán Manchester has friends in lots of places, including the police.
3. The authorities are aware of Swale’s behaviour and it is being monitored.
-
Fine. Please provide me with the incident number, the police station you reported it to and the name of the officer dealing with the complaint. I’ll contact them myself. Email me… you know the address.
The problem is that they will be wondering why, after making a complaint, you’ve appeared on this page, your first post being a direct attack against me. Some of us have an iota of intelligence, Sean.
-
Incidentally, the Prevention of Harassment Act 1997 requires for the alleged course of harassment to have occurred more than once. As I have only spoken to Sean via telephone once, I’m not sure how this would constitute harassment. Oh well.
2. Bishop Seán Manchester has friends in lots of places, including the police. – British Occult Society
Don’t we all?
I’ve got a friend who works in H&M. Beat that, Manky.
Yeah well, guess what?
I’m the Batman.. 😉
To be honest, I really could not give a vampires toss if he / she has any respect for me personally..
[…] But no, I’m not ashamed of myself. I’d just rather not have my face plastered on “fan” blogs like Manchester’s; especially when he snoops through pictures of Trystan’s children by rifling through his Facebook page (“This from a man who publishes diabolical symbolism as his banner image, dresses up as some sort of carnival Satanist and continually posts photographs of his young children on Facebook for every pervert with a computer to ogle”). Not to mention making other creepy comments like “What is wrong with the man? It will all go terribly wrong for him one day if he doesn’t learn to mind his own business.” (Comments dated April 28, 2014 on Trystan’s guest article for Mysterious Times, “The Highgate Vampire – An Exercise In Deception?“) […]
G’day Sean,
Just to give you a heads up, I’ve written a post on your recent reactivation of “Hoggwatch.” Here tis: http://thevampirologist.wordpress.com/2014/04/30/my-number-one-fan/
Hope you like it! In the meantime, still waiting on that apology.
[…] recently wrote an overview of the Highgate Vampire case for Kirst D’Raven’s excellent Mysterious Times website. It […]
Hmmm–here we go again! I tried to smooth things over with the Bishop a few months ago with not much joy. Guys—You won’t get through the rhetoric–his–and any reason or research presented however well and proven with evidence—- will soon be re-written into another version of events–so don’t bother trying. He isn’t the only one though–I have had plenty of stupid malice from the resident of Muswell Hill, and plenty of spats from Anthony–though I have to say at times he does admit to the odd misunderstanding of things—I refer to the Kirklees Vampire which the Bishop–followed by Farrant–chased after some years ago.. You will always be in the wrong whatever these two old fellas protest. I won’t mention the beautiful young maiden who magically fell in luv with Mr F and cleaned up him, his flat, his toilet–we were sent pictures—-and they are living happily ever after just like an old Prince Charming and Cinders–or do I mean Beauty and the Beast—- and I have been a victim of both these two old giffers, ! I did unfortunately for me got sadly got swept up in Farrant’s doomed romance with his former “secretary” who at the time was obsessed with them both, that’s the bish and the Sorceror–at separate times I might add. Failing that she has now turned her wrath upon me and the continuing dickipoggy saga of Robin Hoods Grave at Kirklees, W yORKS. Both these fellas were patron of the Yorkshire Robin Hood Society at one time, and so was JPL! It was all about the prioress who murdered Robin–for those who don’t know–she might have been a vampire as she bled him to death,!
-
Oh lordy! The plot indeed thickens 🙂
-
Why aren’t you a little more honest, Barbara Green? You are hiding the fact that you contacted Bishop Seán Manchester a handful of years back and asked to put aside whatever differences might have existed in the past. The bishop readily agreed and wished you well. You befriended him on Facebook and started “joining” him to various groups in which he had no real interest. You even requested that he become the “patron” of your Yorkshire Robin Hood Society for the second time! He politely declined, explaining that he no longer shared an interest in these matters.
The problem for the bishop is that you wanted to involve him in your continuing preoccupations in Yorkshire and he didn’t want to become involved. It was only a matter of time before you turned to those harbouring animosity towards the bishop, one in particular jumped at the opportunity to recruit you for his personal vendetta.
Bishop Seán Manchester patiently explained to you that for him the Highgate and Kirklees cases are now history and that he prefers to dwell in the present. He did not advise you to do anything outside of what you were already doing, but for him it was all in the past where he believes it should remain. So, you turned against him.
When Farrant joined you at the Kirklees grave in 2005 for his publicity stunt, duly recorded in the Brighouse Echo, and on a video camera brought for the purpose, it was fifteen years *after* Bishop Manchester held his vigil at the same location.
What exactly did the bishop do to merit your odium in recent times, Barbara Green? Was it because he remained silent when you wanted to involve him? Or did you allow yourself to be persuaded by one or more of his enemies? One thing is for certain, you turned against him once again for no real reason beyond the fact that it suited your purpose. The first time you did this was in the previous century when out of the blue you were in cahoots with Farrant. When that didn’t work out, you went through a period of wanting to get in touch with the bishop. Eventually you did get in touch and started sending him greetings cards and all sorts. He accepted the olive branch and returned one of his own. So, what made you become hostile again?
The falsehoods, fabrications and unfriendly faux pas began earlier this year:
“Which according to the Book Of [David] Hep[worth] she most certainly was not! Or [Bishop Seán Manchester]’s either! Though both these nitwits insist she was their bessy friends.” – Barbara Green (10 February 2014)
Bishop Seán Manchester’s response to Barbara Green follows, after a similar claim was made by her in the previous month on a Facebook group he administrates:
“I would like to start, if I may, with the question as to why you published on your FB group that I have claimed to be the ‘best of friends with Hepworth and her ladyship’ when I was friends with neither?” – Bishop Seán Manchester (27 January 2014)
Bishop Seán Manchester added on the same day the following comment:
“The claim is without any foundation and is being either falsely attributed or repeated from a second-hand and probably dubious source. I had no meetings or any meaningful communication with either David Hepworth or Lady Margarete Armytage.” – Bishop Seán Manchester (27 January 2014)
Barbara Green could provide no source or validation for her claim when invited to do so by the bishop. Her response was to block Bishop Seán Manchester, and also ban one of his moderators from a group of hers that he had joined.
Barbara Green repeated the same false allegation about Bishop Seán Manchester the following month on one of her Facebook groups which, since Hogg was invited by her to join, have all become significantly anti-Bishop Seán Manchester.
Link to Bishop Seán Manchester’s response to Barbara Green:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/54064826234/permalink/10151924616431235/?comment_id=10151924839481235&offset=0&total_comments=19So, Barbara Green, you still you persist with the falsehood about Bishop Seán Manchester supposedly claiming friendship with the late Lady Armytage. While it is true Farrant makes such a claim, the bishop never has. We have now lost count of how many times you have repeated the same false allegation on Facebook.
“Both [Bishop Seán Manchester] and Farrant claim to have been great pals with her ladyship.” – Barbara Green (Facebook, 15 February 2014)
Joining forces with two females and a male who are exceptionally hostile towards Bishop Seán Manchester has taken you back to where you were last century. It is almost as if you are haunted by the past and seek to have it repeat itself over and over. How any of this squares with you claiming to be a Catholic convert is difficult to fathom, but, let’s be absolutely honest, Barbara Green, apart from asking why you are posting misleading material, what has Bishop Manchester actually done?
-
BOS – Seeing as though you are not actually the subject of this discussion, I see no reason why anyone should feel the need to answer any of your questions. I mean.. you could be anyone. Why should these people answer to you if you won’t even tell them who you really are?
-
-
I’m not sure about it being filmed on a train, but Manchester does mention being interviewed by Jonathan Ross:
“Jonathan Ross immediately invited me onto his show where I was joined by Paula Yates, Slim Gaillard and Tony Benn. It was here that I produced a facsimile of the actual wooden stake used to dispatch a vampire, much to everyone’s astonishment. And television history was made when photographic evidence of a decomposing vampire was transmitted for the first time with the explanation that in its previous supernatural state capture on film would have been impossible.”
– The Highgate Vampire, rev. ed. (London: Gothic Press, 1991), p. 16
-
I remember Tony Benn being there, so that must be it. I also remember the blurry photo of what appeared to be a prop from a low budget horror film. Maybe he got the stake from the same source. My jaw did drop, not through astonishment, but because I realised we were supposed to take his ridiculous tale seriously.
-
-
Barbara, re:
“I have had plenty of stupid malice from the resident of Muswell Hill [David Farrant], and plenty of spats from Anthony–though I have to say at times he does admit to the odd misunderstanding of things”
You have spats with me because we’ve disagreed over certain things, for instance, when I said explorations into Della Farrant’s identity should be avoided on Angie’s blog, and also Robin Hood stuff, etc. I’m not sure which “odd misunderstanding of things” you mean. What I’ve said, is the Robin Hood business can get incredibly convoluted – just as much as the Highgate Vampire case does, for that matter.
In terms of the Kirklees Vampire which Manchester “investigated,” I’ve given that a little coverage here: http://dawwih.blogspot.com.au/2009/08/trespassing-on-private-property.html
As this is about the Highgate Vampire I am not going to argue the toss, as it is hopeless as the Bishop is always right and everyone else is trying to discredit him in some way–like a bishop holocaust, why are so many people against him and trying to thwart him and accuse him of all this dickipoggy—,–ask that for starters. I know what I know, I have reams of the stuff in files, going up onto the YRHS FACEBOOK for anyone who wants to see, including that shanekins with HEPWORTH IN 2002 A WHEN I WAS TRYING TO SORT THINGS OUT–WELL, its there to see, I am not spending time answering all this twaddle–whether the Bishop believes what he says and believes he is always right, and believes what he wrote in the Highgate vampire and so forth, who knows. Same applies for farrant.Silly boys!
-
Silly boys indeed! Sending an anonymous coward to do their dirty work 😉
-
Anthony Hogg is greatly amused by Bishop Seán Manchester pretending that he is, in fact, not Bishop Seán Manchester – even more so, while Bishop Seán Manchester is posting under the name of an organisation Bishop Seán Manchester dissolved on August 8, 1988.
“We are a very small remnant of the British Occult Society that was presided over by Bishop Seán Manchester in the previous century,” Bishop Seán Manchester writes, while Anthony Hogg points out that does that mean if Anthony Hogg was a cop, but retired, that Anthony Hogg can *still* refer to himself as a cop, even though he’s no longer employed in that role?
Anthony Hogg can also only wonder why Bishop Seán Manchester would (allegedly) involve police in some sort of harassment suit, while Bishop Seán Manchester continues to haunt this comments section…harassing people. Anthony Hogg thinks Bishop Seán Manchester must have his biretta on backwards.
Bishop Seán Manchester asks, “what has Bishop Manchester actually done?” Many things, answers Anthony Hogg, not limited to stalking and harassing people while masquerading under sockpuppets.
Aside from that, Anthony Hogg is also wondering why “British Occult Society” keeps talking on behalf of himself, Bishop Seán Manchester, when Bishop Seán Manchester said “Nobody is authorised to speak in my stead.” – http://therightreverendseanmanchester.blogspot.co.uk/2009/08/from-dna-to-demons.html …especially as Bishop Seán Manchester is talking about (supposed) criminal matters concerning himself.
Anthony Hogg is also wondering why Bishop Seán Manchester lied about becoming a “private individual” when Bishop Seán Manchester is posting comments here, on a publicly accessible article and telling all sorts of stories about himself, Bishop Seán Manchester.
Anthony Hogg is also left wondering how much of an ego must Bishop Seán Manchester have, that he must keep referring to himself in the third person, as if he is an entity that exists outside himself.
Lastly, Anthony Hogg is waiting to hear two things from Bishop Seán Manchester: 1) what did Bishop Seán Manchester think of Anthony Hogg’s recent post about him, written in the wake of Bishop Seán Manchester re-activating his fan blog, “Hoggwatch”, 2) when will Bishop Seán Manchester be apologising to Anthony Hogg for creating it/re-activating it in the first place?
Anthony Hogg looks forward to Bishop Seán Manchester’s reply – and will now stop speaking in third person, to highlight how ludicrous Bishop Seán Manchester’s replies here have been.
-
I’m starting to wonder whether we need a “ManchesterWatch,” something similar to “Stop Sylvia Browne.” – http://stopsylvia.com/home/
The way he’s carrying on here, I think it’d be an excellent way to amass evidence of his nasty behaviour in one neat package. It’d also serve as a public warning to people who have the misfortune of crossing his path.
I’m sure the police would be *very* interested in seeing how he chooses to waste their time with harassment claims. Maybe his church would find it useful, too. They could see that the “bishop” act is actually a sham and strip him of the title he obviously doesn’t deserve.
Who was it that appeared on a tv programme some years ago and was described as a vampire hunter? I only have a hazy memory of the programme, but it was shot on a train and I think may have been hosted by Jonathan Ross.
-
no idea Richard?
-
Richard,
I’m not sure about it being filmed on a train, but Manchester does mention being interviewed by Jonathan Ross:
“Jonathan Ross immediately invited me onto his show where I was joined by Paula Yates, Slim Gaillard and Tony Benn. It was here that I produced a facsimile of the actual wooden stake used to dispatch a vampire, much to everyone’s astonishment. And television history was made when photographic evidence of a decomposing vampire was transmitted for the first time with the explanation that in its previous supernatural state capture on film would have been impossible.”
– The Highgate Vampire, rev. ed. (London: Gothic Press, 1991), p. 16.
1996 In Search of Dracula with Jonathan Ross (TV Movie documentary) ?
He had the stakes in a cricket bat case. Wossy was quite amused. I think he was wearing a flowered shirt also, not the religious habit There was a later tv show in which he had a bust up with someone who didn’t call him your grace or some religious title. He wrote to my solicitor and said I had neurotic tantrums or something, because I disagreed with him over something—-still have the letter, the solicitor thought he was loopy loo to have done such a thing and chucked it away though I have a copy–another person more recently took a leaf out of his book in writing to my friends or people I knew with a similar nasty trick. He said the holy spirit descended upon him when he was ordained and I still have the photo of the “holy shimmering light”–I could go on. I might add I have had a senior and responsible professional job till I was 60, while these people who like to call me mad for the most part have been frankly unemployable, or unwilling to work. I am not having a go at anyone who tries to get a job these days, I know its a lot harder to do so now, but I am going back 20-30-40 years ago. when it was much easier, ieven if you had no professional qualifications, luckily I did. I did try to smooth things over with his holiness but it made little difference, and also I was under attack from the land of farrant at the time with his thwartedness and rubbish U TUBE and stupid hoax about Kirklees, but that’s another story. There’s nowt to choose between ‘ em! They can both talk the “hind leg off a donkey”–a Yorkshire saying, full of rhetoric and balony, though I suspect Farrant knows he’s talking rubbish but not sure if the bish doesn’t fully believe his own spiel and truly thinks he is a victim of a big plot against him.
-
I think we’d like to see that letter, Barbara…
Will post it private–it might be a bit hard to read, if so I will translate–you know I have tons of the stuff and arguments on message boards going back years, well till around 1997 when I got my computer, but other stuff also………….
ps–If Luisa became anaemic and died as a result surely there would have been medical records and possibly a coroners report, or at least a modern day diagnosis–she would surely have gone into hospital for investigations with such symptoms–not just been given Br Keith’s nourishing broth. Apparently we are told later that Luisa was a pseudonym, but no such grave of a young woman with that date when she supposedly died–or un-died it would seemeth— and became a giant spider in that graveyard has been located. These days such things would be fully investigated–where was her family, who organised the funeral, what did it say on the death cert–vampire bite?
-
Elizabeth Wojdyla was the recipient of the nourishing broth in question, Lusia was actually Jacqueline Cooper, the woman Manchester was seeing while he was still married to Marie (for all his stone throwing, he obviously has nothing against adultery). See: http://dawwih.blogspot.com.au/2012/01/interesting-find.html
But yes, she was the one who died and turned into a giant spider in her vampire state (though I suspect Jacqueline’s actually still alive somewhere out there – and would likely be quite amused by that nonsense, if not a little disturbed by it).
Manchester gave two causes for “Lusia’s” death in his book, “The Highgate Vampire”: “a form of leukaemia” (1985, p. 120) or “a blood disorder” (1991, p. 155).
-
You could probably look it up in the BDMs in the archives, If you were so inclined.
-
Well Anthony that is the usual vague airy fairy twaddle and means absolutely nothing without documented medical proof from Luisa’s GP or the hospital–if there was a medic involved, which surely there must have been to state a diagnosis of leukaemia–and the following “diagnosis” from outer space— ” blood disorder” means absolutely nothing and I am sure this was before the AIDS situation otherwise that would also be a possibility. But there are many things which may cause anaemia so –details please, Seany !!!!! If Luisa had Leukaemia then it clearly wasn’t anything to do with the vampire bite, for a start anyway–if she had been diagnosed with Leukaemia–and make your mind up, Sean—then not to get this woman treated was a pretty irresponsible thing to do.Had she no family? I am of course writing as if this preposterous saga could be true, which as you have explained , Anthony,Luisa was this Miss mrs ms or whatnot cooper really–would be interesting to speak to her!!!! You could get away with such a tale a hundred years ago, but the story does not make sense anyway–if Luisa had leukaemia which proves she had been diagnosed medically for which there should be records, then to follow up it by a second idea— a “blood disorder” which could mean just about anything– it ‘s all ****about face as we say in Yorkshire—-so did she have leukaemia or not whatever the form—-, or some unspecified blood disorder which only Sean knows the details of and could tell us how he came to this conclusion without lab tests and medical examinations of Luisa—-and if she did have either of these two alleged conditions, which to quote a follower of his holiness, as Miss X is always saying—- SHE KNOWS THIS AND THAT ETC “for a fact” (without the least bit of evidence) anyway its obvious Luisa should have been hospitalised , investigated and treated—-so what had the vampire bite to do with her sad demise into the undead–to emerge as a giant spider with the dickipoggy naked dawn ceremony–of which more to come. I did have the 1985 copy of the HGV but foolishly gave it to that rascal farrant at the time of his great romance, the one before his dream woman turned up to turn him into a sex symbol and tuRN his mucky old bedsit into a flashy penthouse complete with chandeliers and lobsters! Poor lobsters, boiled alive, I would not touch one, lobster eaters–and veal eaters and etc, no way!
Kirst,
As it happens another author, Kevin Demant, did try looking for proof of her death/burial (including visiting the cemetery she was supposedly buried in), but turned up nothing.
Of course, no such a record of her death will be found because Jacqueline “Lusia” Cooper is likely still around.
Despite being staked in vampire spider form in 1982 (according to Manchester’s “Highgate Vampire” narrative), David Farrant attests that she was still in Manchester’s company even during the mid-80s. Indeed, all three used to dine together – on people food, not blood.
Barbara,
Regarding Lusia’s family, in Manchester’s narrative, it’s her sister, Anne, that he found out Lusia had passed away seven years previous – from “a form of leukaemia” or “a blood disorder,” depending on which version of the book you read.
I’d love to speak to Ms. Cooper, but she’s proved to be quite elusive. It’s likely she’s changed her name, possibly married, but I think it’s a safe bet that she’s out there, somewhere, along with Elizabeth Wojdyla, too. After all, they’d be close to Manchester’s age.
I’m sure those two vampire “victims” would have a lot of interesting things to say.
Speaking of dreams though, Manchester details a dream of Lusia in the first edition of THV, ripe with Freudian insights: she appears before him, furiously masturbating herself with a sharpened wooden stake. If you think I’m kidding, I’m not:
“I can still see her swaying to and fro, caressing her silky skin in rhythm. I raise the wooden stake in my hand only to have her snatch it from me and commence a ferocious masturbation which leaves her spurting blood out of every orifIce at the moment of orgasm. At this point I would awake.” (Manchester 1985, p. 128)
I can only wonder what Ms. Cooper would make of the bishop’s fantasies.
Quite-but we need a proper medical diagnosis and date of death and cause and record of the burial at the cemetery and family details –was it West Kensal—with a date and name of a young woman buried then about–but frankly without all this which Manchester is free to provide us with–it sounds dickipoggy. and no family to back him up–well– As I have already explained!
-
But to provide details would be an admission of culpable negligence, possibly murder and / or desecration of a corpse wouldn’t it? Or at least accessory to the above?
I am not making any accusations just asking questions–being in the medical profession–about this story, either it is absolutely true in which case back up MEDICAL AND LEGAL evidence, bibliography,and much more is essential or it would be easier–and safer–for the author to say its fiction based on a legend, but he has stated its the absolute truth so————- –for instance who exactly was this mysterious European nobleman who trotted over Europe to become a vampire in Highgate and then packed up his coffin and trotted off down the road—etc—–.. I have discussed this book in the past with many others and frankly stuck up for Sean but we are left with these options–he made it all up and said it was true, or he was deluded and thought it was true, if he made it up deliberately then that is naughty but if he believed it was true but can produce no evidence other than his word, well………… at the end of the day could this yarn possibly be true, looking at these questions? If the questions were answered with back up evidence, names and medical stuff as I have said, and the gravesite where “Luisa” was buried—-then who knows? .I won’t mention farrant other than to say I think he does make things up deliberately from my personal experience of the great big whopping lies he has made about me and the KIRKLEES vAMPIRE–another of Manchesters stories—-.–between them its all to do which one of them is the most famous vampire hunter!
So very, very sad to see yet another webpage devoted to harassing, misrepresenting, and basically defaming Bishop Manchester under the guise of an “objective study”.
There is nothing objective about this monograph, or the cyber witch-hunt which has followed it.
Fans and followers of the Bishop–and there are many, of which I am but one–typically keep an elegant silence when observing these embarrassing tirades, in the hope that they fizzle out sooner…but trust me, this will stop eventually.
Kudos to the BOS representative for at least attempting to spread the truth about some of the events discussed in this post.
-
“So very, very sad to see yet another webpage devoted to harassing, misrepresenting, and basically defaming Bishop Manchester under the guise of an “objective study”.”
Hardly devoted, deary. There is only one article that mentions him on here.
-
Sean “British Occult Society” Manchester disappears… Supporter, “Peter Michaels” shows up. Hmm…
Anyhoo, Hi Pete! Long time, no see!
Can you kindly detail how Sean Manchester – who has been writing here as “British Occult Society” – has been harassed, misrepresented or defamed? Tossing those words about doesn’t make it so.
The article is very objective: it is a balanced overview of the case, in which both “sides” are critiqued. If anything, it showed a remarkable amount of restraint. For that, you should be commending Trystan, not vilifying him.
A sense of balance is something you’ll find useful to this thing, as your own post reveals: a total lack of objectivity, vague criticisms, yet not disputing any of the criticisms in the first place. It’s basically supporting Sean Manchester for the sake of supporting Sean Manchester – which make your own criticisms inherently redundant.
Giving kudos to a “BOS” representative is one example. Firstly – there is no “BOS”, little alone a representative. That organisation ceased in 1988. You can’t speak on behalf of a defunct organisation. Also, the “representative” in question is Sean Manchester, as you well know.
Even so, the comments made under his “British Occult Society” guise are inherently null and void: as Manchester wrote (under his actual name), “Nobody is authorised to speak in my stead.” – http://therightreverendseanmanchester.blogspot.co.uk/2009/08/from-dna-to-demons.html
Therefore, Sean “British Occult Society” Manchester’s commentary about police action, etc. is also void.
““So very, very sad to see yet another webpage devoted to harassing, misrepresenting, and basically defaming Bishop Manchester under the guise of an “objective study”.”
Hardly devoted, deary. There is only one article that mentions him on here.”
Ms D’Raven, by the term “webpage” I was referring to this actual page–including the comments section–rather than the website as a whole. If this was ambiguous, the equivocation was my own; I apologise.
Anthony! Good to speak to you again. I miss your regular blog on DAWWIH, and the resulting sparring sessions we sometimes had. (I only found this particular webpage as a result of your latest post.) I sense another on the horizon.
For example, you state:
“Sean “British Occult Society” Manchester disappears… Supporter, “Peter Michaels” shows up. Hmm…”
I see you’ve left that deliberately vague, but to anybody reading this, the inherent implication is clear; not only do you believe that the BOS representative is a “sockpuppet” of the Bishop, you probably think I’m one as well.
Anthony, the Bishop has many fans and supporters–real people whom I have MET, face-to-face. One of the slandering tactics used by those seeking to defame the Bishop is to imply–or downright state–that anybody who defends him is a sock-puppet, a fictitious persona utilised by the Bishop in some kind of propaganda war.
Well, this is nonsense. I know that I am a real person (last time I checked!) and should anybody wish to verify my identity as an independent fellow, then this could happily be arranged via a meeting, phone call or some Facetime.
If I am wrongly accused of being a sock-puppet, how many others have been? Sadly there are probably many…
I am unaware of the identity of the BOS representative who has–thankfully–chosen to impart some common sense and truth in this comments section, but I see no evidence that this is the Bishop, nor do I see you attempting to provide any evidence of such.
And yet you accuse me of lack of objectivity! Objectivity requires a devotion to empirical evidence, and yet you freely slander the Bishop like this while offering no evidence; merely pure prejudice.
Tut tut, dear boy. Pot and kettle, what?
In fact, thinking on it, the only person in this entire scenario who I know for a FACT has used a sock-puppet (and lies) to push their own agenda is you, Anthony.
I hate to put it so harshly, but I’m afraid it’s the truth.
-
Anthony, perhaps now is the time you release that information on how you tallied the IP address of that of Manchester with a sock puppet?
-
Oh, you mean the one that connected Manchester to Vebjorn and “Vampirologist” – setting off the domino effect of his connection to a batch of other usernames? That will come in due course. 🙂
-
G’day Pete,
Let’s say your timing couldn’t be better!
I don’t just “believe” Manchester is using a sockpuppet here, I *know* he is. I’ve proved it, as you’d know from reading my blog.
Sean “British Occult Society” Manchester has not being imparting common sense here, Pete. Hell, even masquerading under the name of a defunct society should set your alarm bells ringing. As I also pointed out, Manchester (under his real name) has said that “Nobody” is authorised to speak in his stead – which is exactly what his sockpuppet, “British Occult Society” has been doing. Therefore, everything his sockpuppet says is to be taken with a grain of salt.
Just don’t blame me for Manchester rendering his efforts moot by his own words elsewhere – one’s bound to shoot themselves in the foot if they wrap themselves in a web of deception as Manchester has.
Now, if you don’t see where I’ve proved “British Occult Society” is, in fact, Manchester himself, I suggest you read through the links I’ve supplied here. If you want me to repeat them for you, I’m happy to do so.
In the meantime, yes, I am accusing you of a lack of objectivity in this matter, because you’ve displayed none so far (after all, you haven’t even specifically addressed the *specific* issues you have with Trystan’s article – so why are you here, then?)
Falling back on vagaries like “slander” (without even saying *what* that slander is), is yet another example of the lack of objectivity in question – rendering you little more than a clone of Manchester’s sockpuppeteering tactics.
As I said, you’re “supporting Sean Manchester for the sake of supporting Sean Manchester”. If you choose to shut your eyes and clap your ears over his indiscretions, nastiness, etc. that’s fine. I’m more than aware of your misguided admiration for him. But if you’re going to make counter-charges, at least provide something more substantial than tossing about two-penny words like “slander” and “defamation” with no rhyme or reason.
It’ll make the conversation much more productive.
Let’s start with your closing comment:
“In fact, thinking on it, the only person in this entire scenario who I know for a FACT has used a sock-puppet (and lies) to push their own agenda is you, Anthony.”
Which sockpuppet(s) have I used, Pete, what lies have I pushed and what exactly is my agenda supposed to be?
Anthony,
Thanks for replying. Allow me to respond to your comments.
“I don’t just “believe” Manchester is using a sockpuppet here, I *know* he is. I’ve proved it, as you’d know from reading my blog.”
First up, you have never proved that “BOS” is a sock-puppet of the Bishop; not by any serious definition of “proof”. And yes, I’ve read the links.
“…after all, you haven’t even specifically addressed the *specific* issues you have with Trystan’s article – so why are you here, then?”
I am here, as you already know sir, to make my voice heard in the comments section to attempt to add some balance to a one-sided orgy of defamation of one of England’s last Great Men. But since you asked me about the article, certainly I will respond to that, too. Mr Swale’s article (not the comments which followed) was excellent, and I’m not questioning his clear talents as a writer; however the piece is certainly not fully objective. The most telling line for me was his analysis of the Bishop’s account of the case, which the author gives us almost as a throwaway comment:
“Manchester’s version of the Highgate drama is clearly an entertaining mix of fact, embellishment, exaggeration and outright fantasy.”
Mr Swale is basically calling the Bishop a liar in the ultimate, dismissive, part of this sentence. Yet:
-Mr Swale does not tell us WHICH parts of the Bishop’s account are “outright fantasy” (i.e., lies); and
-He doesn’t give us, the reader, ANY evidence to support his suggestion that sections of the Bishops account are “fantasy”. Not one shred!
If that’s an “objective” article to you lad, I have several pounds of moon rock for sale you may be interested in.
“Oh, you mean the one that connected Manchester to Vebjorn and “Vampirologist” – setting off the domino effect of his connection to a batch of other usernames? That will come in due course.”
Gosh, you do sound awfully like Farrant (but obviously without the embarrassing rhotacism). I won’t hold my breath for “proof” of his Victorian sources, and I won’t hold my breath here, either.
“Which sockpuppet(s) have I used, Pete, what lies have I pushed and what exactly is my agenda supposed to be?”
You have previously used the sock-puppet name “Desmond Madison”; you have lied about your identity whilst in correspondence with the Bishop; lied about your Christian faith (amongst other things); and your agenda–as you well know–at the time was to trick the Bishop into making some kind of silly error of recall in a matter that happened decades ago: all so that you could attempt (ironically) to portray him as some kind of liar.
You have even admitted–proudly!–to these acts:
http://thehighgatevampire.co.uk/leavesthatwither/2013/12/19/byrne-or-bullshitter/
I must say Anthony, I had to shake my head when I read about your duplicitous actions in this regard. In previous years I loyally followed your blog because you did in fact emanate some aura of honesty and objectivity in your analysis of the Highgate Vampire case, but now…using sock-puppets, lying about your identity, intended entrapment…?
Wow. These are not the actions of a serious, open truth-seeker. In fact it’s more akin to school-yard level cyber-bullying than serious journalism.
Nobody of merit can take you seriously as an “objective investigator” of the paranormal now. And it genuinely saddens me.
-
Attacking the messenger still doesn’t detract from the fact that a shape shifting vampire walking the streets of London is either fiction, fantasy or pure bollocks…
-
Okay. I’m tiring of the constant to-and-froing of attacks and counter attacks here…
I asked Trystan to provide me with his views on the Highgate Vampire case. Trystan responded by creating a very readable, interesting essay. I published it because I really, really like it. I like it so much, that I really don’t want to take it down without replacing it with another article on the same subject.Here is where we hit a problem… I don’t know the case. I’ve never read the books, watched the documentaries, met the people involved.. nothing.
I consider myself to be pretty objective. I’ve been investigating the paranormal and weird phenomena for many years. I would gladly reassess the case and write up a report that is accurate and unbiased… but first, the people involved are going to have to provide me with every single scrap of evidence there is.
Can anyone here see that happening?
-
Good luck Kirst. It has taken me five years to come to my conclusions! 😉
-
I know this. My point is that while Mr Manchester is refusing to part with the evidence there will never be a truly unbiased write up of the Highgate Vampire case 🙂
-
-
I humbly suggest Peter be put up to the task!
Of course Manchester has lied. Vampires don’t exist. Lusia’s death certificate and grave site have never been located. Hail to the garden gnomes!
Hi Pete,
I’ve proved Manchester is masquerading as “British Occult Society,” as the paper trail in my blog entries reveal.
They show the *direct* connection between his various aliases (which also includes “Arminius Vambrey”, among others), leading right up to his claim against me for infringing his intellectual property, “Hoggwatch”, after I posted a link to it on Facebook.
“Hoggwatch”‘s authors alternated between “Vebjorn” and “BOS” (covered in the same entries you supposedly read), yet the intellectual property claim issued against me, by Sean Manchester, established him as its author. In other words – they’re him; he’s them. Manchester uses sockpuppets. Recognise.
I respect your right to stick your head in the sand, but don’t say I haven’t proved it when I have.
In terms of adding balance here, standing up for Manchester for the sake of standing up for him, while deliberately ignoring the evidence against him and the thrust of the criticisms, is not balance. It’s bias.
That said, if you appreciate Trystan’s report, but find yourself unable to actually counter his evidence, then you’re indirectly acknowledging its accuracy; your main criticism was how it concluded. Yet, it’s obvious to anyone who reads the thing *how* Trystan would’ve drawn that conclusion in the first place. That’s what you overlooked.
In terms of the bit about “sounding like Farrant”, re: Trystan and I bantering about having further evidence of Manchester’s sockpuppetry, rest assured, I do. It goes back to my “paper trail” comment earlier. In this case, Manchester’s IP matching “Vebjorn”‘s and “Vampirologist”‘s – two of his sockpuppet idents. Those aliases, in turn, have a paper trail preceding them (in other words, they’re all connected and lead to a single source: Manchester) – and those are just the ones I can personally prove. I’m sure there’ve been many others. Indeed, as we know, before the ‘net, Manchester was already fond of using fake identities, e.g. Ruthwen Glenavron.
Regarding “Desmond Madison,” yes, I used that alias in order to obtain information from Manchester about claims he’d made concerning the “Phoney Nazi” hoax he concocted in 1977, due to the fact that he doesn’t answer questions from me directly – something I pointed out in the same expose you linked to.
Manchester tried to disassociate himself from the “Commander’s” identity (it was really him), by falsely identifying someone else: Terence Byrne, an Irish neo-Nazi.
Not only did Manchester falsely identify Byrne, who died in 1982 and was therefore hardly in a position to rebut Manchester’s claim, Manchester also set up a blog called “The Commander” to cement the link further – under two aliases, no less.
That same blog was rife with plagiarism – another one of Manchester’s perennial habits.
All of these findings are clear in the blog entry itself. Yet instead of acknowledging what these findings *mean* (that your idol is a liar and a particularly nasty one at that), your greatest criticism of my expose is … I didn’t use my real name to ask Manchester questions about his own claim, even though I also explained why in the very same blog entry. Um…
I’d respect your self-delusion, if you weren’t trying to vilify me at the expense of the person who actually did the misdeeds in the first place. So forgive me if *I* get a little harsh, but, with all due respect, Pete – you must have your head lodged pretty far up Manchester’s arse to overlook such things. Why’ve you put it up there?
Regarding my faith, I haven’t lied about that. So, you’re wrong. If you’re suggesting I’ve lied about it, because I don’t live up to the Christian ideal (thereby suggesting I’m not a Christian), care to explain how you can overlook so much evil from a man professing himself to be a Christian *bishop*, yet continue to defend his supposed religiosity? I’m keen to hear it.
As it stands, I didn’t trick Manchester into lying. He did that of his own accord. I certainly didn’t tell him to produce a spin-off blog, “The Commander”, from the lie, either. I didn’t tell him to plagiarise Wikipedia or the Anti-Fascist Ireland’s blog or steal pics from it, either. I didn’t tell him to create it with an alias, or post to it under an alias. Those things were all his own doing. Indeed, he has not even apologised for doing so in the first place. Instead, he tried to bury the evidence; further proof of his dishonesty.
If you can’t acknowledge basic facts, keep reversing blame and overlooking Manchester’s clearly-established, duplicitous behaviour, then at least be honest and admit you’re not interested in balance, but simply to defend Manchester…for the sake of defending Manchester (and attacking his critics in the process).
If you can at least admit that, we’ll save ourselves a lot of time by discussing things like “proof” and “evidence” and you can go back to sticking your fingers in your ears, singing “Sean’s the greatest man alive! Lalalala! I’m not listening!” You’re perfectly entitled to do so, but let’s say it doesn’t make your hero look any better. Quite the opposite.
In the meantime, when you want to discuss any of the matters here, seriously, let us know. You can start by elaborating on the other “lies” – “lied about your Christian faith (amongst other things)” – I’m supposed to have told.
ph1lb, you have the right to your views on the supernatural, or religion, or whatever metaphysical topics you please: and I will defend to the hilt your right to express them, sir!
However not everybody feels the way you do, nor is a sceptical attitude automatically a “given” to most people. In fact, the idea of the “other world” and its inhabitants (of which we could say “demons” or “vampires” are but one small genus) is inherent in the belief-systems of most of the world’s religions, from Christianity to Paganism, Wicca to Taoism.
When put in such terms–that the majority of the world’s population would accept in some form–the idea is really not so bizarre, my friend. But I accept your view.
-
“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.” to quote Marcello Truzzi. In this case there are very extraordinary claims, no proof at all and what I can see (as an observer here) a campaign to discredit the author of this article, rather than find fault in the article itself.
I have to wonder if Bishop Manchester and his admirers have been taking a few tips on dealing with criticism off the late L ‘Ron’ Hubbard…
-
I attempt to cajole or discredit nobody. I merely hope to remind those materialists with rusty, dogmatic, closed minds that; “there are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio”.
Your Truzzi quote is interesting. It’s worth remembering that Truzzi was paraphrasing Laplace, who also said:
“Ce que nous connaissons est peu de chose…ce que nous ignorons est immense.”
or: “What we know is a little bit…what we don’t know is immense.”
He was a wise man, I think.
-
Address the burden of proof, then I’ll take you seriously.
-
Ms D’Raven, I am not accusing you of any lack of objectivity, nor am I suggesting that you remove Mr Swale’s article. It was interesting and has clearly engendered a vigorous debate, as this topic typically does. I am, however, grateful for being allowed the right to express myself in this discussion.
If the length of the comments string has grown beyond your preference, say so and I will bow out.
Mr Swale:
“Of course Manchester has lied. Vampires don’t exist.”
Well, you are clearly an objective, open-minded reporter on matters of the paranormal, eh? I’m glad you didn’t approach your write-up with any preconceived ideas, old bean!
Excuse the sarcasm, that was probably unwarranted. But seriously, your own metaphysical prejudices or attitudes do not count as “evidence” when writing an article on the experiences of others, Mr Swale.
-
Lol! If you were who you are claiming to be, I would politely suggest the burden of proof lies with Sean to prove the existence of vampire.
-
Pete, two things:
1) There’s a distinction between believing in something supernatural as opposed to stating is as fact. Manchester isn’t just a Joe Public vampire believer, but framed his belief against the backdrop of an investigation – not to mention promoting it as fact through books, TV, radio, etc. So, yes, the burden of proof’s very much on his shoulders.
2) Going by your “more things in heaven and earth” rationale, ok, let’s flip it around and apply that same logic to David Farrant’s claims. I know you’re a big fan of his.
Going by your defence of the supernatural as a whole, surely that means it’s possible David really did encounter what he encountered, too, and all Manchester’s attempts to paint him as a fraud have been misguided.
What say you to that, Pete?
“Knowing things for a FACt” ( which in translation “THis is true because I think so” is one of the familiar annoying giveaway terms of phrase these people use–also “pot and kettle”. I can spot this cliques which are the giveaways every time a new BM DEFENDANT POPS UP. Actually if I had the time and patience I could go through my files and make a list of these various usually fancily named defendants who chime up everytime the Bish’s “facts” are challenged in any way, for if anyone has the effrontery got get above their station and ask anything thing at all which is slightly awkward, then the wrath of the Bish pours upon their head via some spokesperson with an unspellable and unpronounceable NAME , but all waffling on in high dudgeon about this great plot to upset the bishop However, after a while and when things fizzle out, that spokesperson disappears and is heard of no more. What happened to Exorstate for instance. just out of the top of my head—there are dozens of these characters so where to they all go, and how come so many people know so much detail and are experts on the matter or are they–as they often claim–writing without the bishop knowing anything of their efforts on his behalf,so he cannot check to see if they have got everything just right. It does not make sense that there are so many people out their who all sound the same, writing about the poor old fella —in their turn–and getting everything correct, surely the bishop would want to know what people were doing for him on his behalf!
Barbara, you’ll find Peter Michaels is not Sean. He’s got more to do with garden ornaments that hold fishing rods.
Sorry–you have me lost—-but I have all those other names,maybe before your time!
-
He’s referring to Redmond.
There’s really no point trying to talk reason to internet trolls, stalkers and obsessive materialists simply looking to attack Bishop Manchester. So I’ll make this my last comment. To quote another much-maligned patriot:
“There is no more unhealthy being, no man less worthy of respect, than he who either really holds, or feigns to hold, an attitude of sneering disbelief toward all that is great and lofty, whether in achievement or in that noble effort which, even if it fails, comes to second achievement. A cynical habit of thought and speech, a readiness to criticise work which the critic himself never tries to perform, an intellectual aloofness which will not accept contact with life’s realities – all these are marks, not as the possessor would fain to think, of superiority but of weakness. They mark the men unfit to bear their part painfully in the stern strife of living, who seek, in the affection of contempt for the achievements of others, to hide from others and from themselves in their own weakness.”
-
Good plan, Pete. Barge on here, saying you want to introduce “balance”… then dismiss all commentary as “trolling”, because you can’t refute what’s being said, won’t acknowledge that Manchester deserves to be criticised, nor can you provide any counter-evidence.
“An ad hominem (Latin for “to the man” or “to the person”), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument.” – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
Suffice it to say, your presence here won’t be missed. All the best.
HI. If I may be allowed to add my measly tuppence worth, expecting transparency from the BOS camp is so optimistic as to border on gibbering lunacy. For the better part of two decades, my own interest in the sorry saga of the Highgate Vampire has led to a barrage of spittle-flecked mouthings from the hydra-headed Manchester propoganda machine.For a long time, it was amusing.It’s not every day that you get branded a satanist, anarchist, alcoholic or drug-addled thug by an obviously certifiable lunatic with a persecution complex bigger than his hubris-invoking ego. But even these dismal embers of involvement in the ‘struggle’ pall in time. Mr Swale’s take on the proceedings should serve as a suitable epitaph to the whole business. We constantly hear of proof in the form of ‘secret tapes’ etc, but these always prove to be more elusive than evidence of the vampire itself. How much more self-aggrandisement can Manchester spout before the world heaves a communal weary sigh and he winks out of existence ? How sad to think that Manchester’s final thoughts will be consumed with his endemic vitriol. Lighten up,Sean, life stinks at times, but there are little jewels of consolation among the dross. Don’t go into your dotage with hate chewing at your arse.
Regards,
Rob
-
Secret tapes now???
-
Ah, yes – the secret tapes. As Rob said, Manchester supposedly has secret recordings in which Farrant and Hill (mutual acquaintances of Manchester and of each other) were supposed to have discussed a ghost hoax for the local press. To be fair, there’s some precedence for this, considering the obvious “set up” letters published in the local paper between Farrant and his friends, as Trystan mentions in his article, not to mention the court testimony given by Victoria Jervis (which Trystan also refers to in his article, too).
That said, Farrant has challenged Manchester to release the tapes in question, yet Manchester hasn’t taken him up on the offer. Rather strange, considering it’d validate Manchester’s hoax claims. See: http://dawwih.blogspot.com.au/2013/09/release-tapes.html (note also the appearance of our friend, “Peter Michaels” in the comments section of that post).
What Rob (Milne) has ommitted mentioning, though, is that for all Manchester’s antics, in many ways, his mate, Farrant, can be just as bad. Look at the song and dance he pulled over releasing evidence of the “Victorian sources”, for instance, not to mention the way he has publicly characterised me as a Manchester sockpuppet, etc. Why? Because I point out the holes in Farrant’s claims or question him on them.
Two sides of the same coin.
-
Aye, Ms D’Raven, more secret tapes than a cold wwar honeytrap, apparently . Apocryphal or actual is anybody’s guess. Manchester has crowed about them for ever and a day [or two]. Tapes in which Messrs Farrant and Hill discuss a vampire/ghost hoax but prove to be as elusive as claims for proof of either. Really, life is too short. My challenge to the demented one is to release said tapes to an eager and clamouring public or withdraw into long deserved obscurity.’
Yours, in profoundest ennui,
Rob M
-
Ah, pretty much what I’d like to see myself 🙂
A person of discrimination and exemplary taste. I tip my hat to you before retiiring into my own well-deserved obscurity. My thanks for your grace,
Rob x
[…] my barking mad stalker *Bishop* Sean Manchester finally falling silent on my writeup of the Highgate Vampire case, he has taken to hounding me through other […]
[…] No preference is given to a side. I mentioned Trystan Swale before—his online article, “The Highgate Vampire – An Exercise in Deception?” is one of the best things I’ve ever read about the case. So maybe my work hasn’t […]
[…] of Swale, he wrote a brilliant summary of the case on Mysterious Times called, “The Highgate Vampire – An Exercise in Deception?” (Mar. 27, 2014) This one is a must read! Now, I could spend pages getting into the drama […]
Wow. I read that ENTIRE THREAD. I want my 35 minutes back. This Sean person is a psychopath and a delusional schizophrenic. He needs to be somewhere that will give him the care and supervision that he so clearly requires. I think it’s admirable that Mr. Swale allowed him to post, despite his lack of clarity and understanding of the discussion + not to mention his using a fake identity and talking about himself in the third person – a very common feature of schizophrenia).
[…] A previous attempt to involve my family involved Manchester linking to images of my children in order that […]
Leave a Reply