Spirit Of The Greenwood by Barbara Green

You may also like...

141 Responses

  1. Vampire Research Society says:

    Re: Spirit Of The Greenwood by Barbara Green
    The case of what has become known as the Kirklees Vampire has no parallels with the Highgate Vampire investigation save for occult symbols being discovered in the vicinity plus the blood-drained carcasses of animals. But any comparison ends at that point.

    Enter Robin Hood, or, at least, the legend of the English outlaw.

    The story of Robin Hood being bled to death by his cousin, the prioress of Kirklees, is recorded in a Sloane manuscript. He is said to have died without the sanctity of holy unction and his body was supposedly interred 650 yards from the Kirklees priory gatehouse. Whether he is actually entombed in the Kirklees grave bearing a much later tombstone is a matter open to much speculation. The inscription reads: “Here underneath dis laitl stean Laz Robert earl of Huntingtun … etc.”

    Sir Samuel Armytage fell and died when his horse was terrified by something as he rode past the tomb. Prior to this he had, together with Robert Barr, attempted an exhumation of the grave. However, they had dug only a yard deep when they quit. Despite being the worse for drink, something had so disturbed them that they ran off into the night.

    Land of Lost Content, the Luddite Revolt (published in 1812) records: “The Armytage family lived over the brow of the hill on a splendid site once occupied by Benedictine (Cistercian) nuns. It was called Kirklees. There was a mystery about it which local people only reluctantly tried to penetrate. The mystery was helped physically by the thick shroud of trees that surrounded the place, and was sustained by local tales of ghosts of prioresses and nuns and of the death of Robin Hood whose grave is so imperturbably marked as lying within Kirklees grounds in spite of any facts which might suggest to the contrary.”

    There is a Yorkshire claim that the legendary outlaw Robin Hood is based on a certain Robert of Wakefield whose wife was named Matilda. Hence Robert and Matilda become “Robin and Marion.” There is a problem with this theory owing to the fact that scholars are agreed that written references about the outlaw Robin Hood significantly predate when Robert and Matilda were born. Also, scholars do not believe the “Maid Marion” aspect to have any validity. There is no evidence that she existed. Robin Hood himself could have been any one of innumerable scoundrels and cut-throats of a period covering more than a century, and it might well have been a collective name. But the important point is that references to this person or persons certainly existed before the time when Robert Hode of Wakefield himself came into existence; so it cannot be him.

    There is more than one grave claimed by local enthusiasts to be the tomb of Robin Hood in West Yorkshire, but none seem to be anything more than a much later adaptation. The Kirklees grave with its erroneous Victorian inscription is probably not the tomb of Robin Hood. However, the fact that Robert of Wakefield was not Robin Hood does not necessarily rule out any possibility of this being the outlaw’s tomb. The two matters are not mutually exclusive. And the tomb itself is only one of a number of graves, mostly unmarked, in that immediate vicinity.

    An application was made by the Vampire Research Society at the end of November 1988 to Lady Margarete Armytage, the late owner of Kirklees Hall Estate who died in April 2008, to visit the burial site alleged to be that of Robin Hood on unconsecrated ground. A request to hold a nocturnal vigil near the grave in question was also made along with sundry queries. Back in 1988, amid a lot of growing press speculation about sinister presences and vampires, this intitial request was perhaps understandably turned down.

    Bishop Manchester has offered to bless the grave(s) in question and, should it be found necessary, exorcise the unquiet presence. Further information about the Kirklees mystery can be found at the following link:

    http://www.gothicpress.freeserve.co.uk/The%20Kirklees%20Vampire.htm

  2. greenwych says:

    Re: Spirit Of The Greenwood by Barbara Green
    Indeed, all the above is in my book, as quoted, and also the Bishop under the Byronic alias of Ruthven Glenarven, actually went up to the grave without permission, as published in his book the Vampire Hunters Handbook and the artocle in the Unexplained, called the Kirklees Vampire, 1991, written by himself. So we are in agreement!

    greenwych

  3. Vampire Research Society says:

    Re: Spirit Of The Greenwood by Barbara Green
    The alias claimed by Barbara Green to have been used twenty years ago was indeed employed by more than one private member of the Vampire Research Society to protect their identity, but not by Bishop Seán Manchester who, as a well-known public figure, had no need to hide his identity and invariably always signed with his real name.

    I really don’t understand what Barbara Green’s point is regarding the bishop visiting the grave “without permission” to hold a vigil two decades ago?

    Has she not been to the grave many times without consent? Did she not help orchestrate a trip to the grave with occultists who were filmed on video in 2005? Did she not provide her local nespaper, the Brighouse Echo, with photographs of that illicit occult ceremony held on the top of the grave?

  4. greenwych says:

    Re: Spirit Of The Greenwood by Barbara Green
    Indeed I have never denied going to the grave or that I am Barbara Green. On the other hand the bishop has, if not a ctually denied–I will be kind–has evaded the issue that he has claimed to have visited Robin Hoods Grave without permission though he still doffed his cap–or should we say mitre–to the Late Lady Armytage. He has written and published this himself, so he can hardly deny it, though he seems to manage to do so. The story is in the two published works that I have already mentioned.

    greenwych

  5. Vampire Research Society says:

    Re: Spirit Of The Greenwood by Barbara Green
    Due to the distressed cries from so many in the area who sought action over what was perceived to be an urgent situation, Bishop Seán Manchester decided to hold a vigil, accompanied by two trusted assistants, close to the grave. This was two deacdes ago. He has never denied that his vigil near the grave was without the authorisation of the landowner. The bishop does not believe he would investigate any further without proper consent should these same circumstances once again prevail. There have been no urgent developments to warrant him doing anything further without the express permission of the new landowner.

    The Vampire Research Society is nevertheless aware of a pseudo-occult publicity-stunt “ceremony” that was filmed and photographed on the evening of 20 April 2005 by Red Monkey Films in collaboration with yourself and three others, one of whom has criminal convictions for graveyard desecration and vandalism. No permission was sought and none was given for this behaviour and the landowner threatened those wanting to use footage illegally gained on that evening at the grave with an injunction.

  6. Matt.H says:

    Re: Spirit Of The Greenwood by Barbara Green
    OMG… it must be awesome being a real bishop and busting vampires too. We need an interview with Archbishop Manchester on here ASAP!

  7. greenwych says:

    Re: Spirit Of The Greenwood by Barbara Green
    Whose “distressed cries” were those? I would love to hear. A bit of a whitewash of the situation, as it is alleged to have happened–not that anyone actually believes the Bishop ever set foot on the Kirklees Estate and the whole episode was a figment of his imagination, forsooth, but according to his published work and website, he did indeed go forth to slay the Kirklees vampire–not that he succeeded anyway so the “distressed” populace was left still distressed and stuck indoors at Clifton unless they cared to brave the vampire infestation—however, the Bishop went up and lurked in the woods with two assistants–unamed—and saw something nasty and horrid so strode forth after getting his candlebrum out and shouted “Behold the Light” then they scarpered back to Highgate!

    greenwych

  8. Vampire Research Society says:

    Re: Spirit Of The Greenwood by Barbara Green
    If you – and you can only speak for yourself – do not believe that Bishop Seán Manchester “ever set foot on the Kirklees Estate” why did you claim yesterday in a post on this thread that he “actually went up to the grave without permission”?

    You cannot criticise him for holding a vigil without authorisation from the landowner and then the next day claim he didn’t do anything because he wasn’t even there.

    Either accuse your enemy of one thing or the other.

    You appear to want your cake and eat it.

  9. greenwych says:

    Re: Spirit Of The Greenwood by Barbara Green

    Well its really the bishop who wants his cake and to eat it. If he went to Kirklees he trespassed–like everyone else, no excuses or wiffle waffly excuses about desperate people, but if he wasn’t a naughty boy and didn’t trespass,that is he made the story up– in which case he is free to tell everyone else off for their misdemenours of trespassing ,if not he told a fairy story–that is lies–about going. I have no proof either way, only what he has said, either of hsi versions could be true or false. If he went then he needs to admit it openly and admit he trespassed and stop telling other people off for trespassing,as that is what he has written by his own fair knib then I will accept his version that he went and ergo, trespassed.

    greenwych

  10. LUCI says:

    Re: Spirit Of The Greenwood by Barbara Green
    When he has his cake,dont forget to have it with a cup of tea!

  11. Vampire Research Society says:

    Re: Spirit Of The Greenwood by Barbara Green
    “If he went then he needs to admit it openly and admit he trespassed and stop telling other people off for trespassing.” – Barbara Green

    Please read what was said on the comment posted yesterday (01/07/2010 at 12:30). It states:

    “He has never denied that his vigil near the grave was without the authorisation of the landowner.”

    What he did not do, unlike you, is participate in an occult ceremony over the grave and publicise the fact to the world.

    “If he went then he needs to admit it openly and admit he trespassed and stop telling other people off for trespassing.” – Barbara Green

    Please provide some evidence of Bishop Manchester “telling other people off for trespassing.” And I do mean EVIDENCE, not wishy-washy allegations without any foundation.

  12. greenwych says:

    Re: Spirit Of The Greenwood by Barbara Green
    Well it is good to know that the bishop finally admits opely to Trespassing whatever purpose he went for. What was the purpose of the VIGIL? To save local “distressed” folk from the Kirklees vampire? What did they intend doing when they found the vampire other than shouting, Behold the Light! Did he and his two unnamed assistants succeed in getting rid of the vampire–according to the article by BM seeminly not. I did not partake in any occult ceremonies, either with John Pope de Locksley or anyone else–with Redmonkey films I took them to the gravesite for them to do their film- which ultimately proved a waste of time as they were scared off. These are just figments of the bishops imagination, like so much else, which he writes up as “facts”.I know a ceremony took place there but Ididnt perform it. There is a difference.If Mr M was beside a murder that took place he would not therefore be the murderer!

    If I trespassed then I trespassed for whatever purpose, exactly as the bishop did,it makes no difference whether for a vigil or a ceremony, making a film or listening to the birds .However ,like the bishop,I didnt get any complaints from her ladyship; on the other hand I did not write to her smarmy letters to get into her Social List, as Manchester later boasted that they were the best of pals. However I heard from her minder Mr Hepworth via David’s ex secretary that such was not the case.

    greenwych

  13. LUCI says:

    Re: Spirit Of The Greenwood by Barbara Green
    In lost property is a purple tea cosy.Does this belong to anyone?Without it someones tea will get very cold.Unless they wear it on their head.Now who do we know who does that?

  14. Vampire Research Society says:

    Re: Spirit Of The Greenwood by Barbara Green
    What do you mean by “finally”? There is no “finally” about it. This has been Bishop Manchester’s stated position all along. In fact, if you consult the VRS blogs/forums and his own boards you will find this was confirmed years ago.

    You are once again raising questions on a forum where they cannot be answered because the only person who can address them is not a member. Why don’t you ask him instead of hiding your attacks where he does not see them? You know how to put questions to Bishop Manchester on his Q&A blog. So what’s stopping you? It is cowardly to attack someone in public without their knowledge. You can put questions to him at: http://therightreverendseanmanchester.blogspot.com

    You keep repeating down the years that there were “two unnamed assistants” as if withholding the identity of non-public figures in a highly controversial area of research is somehow unusual or something worthy of your constant criticism. Yet you do not apply the same maxim to your “patron” who, let’s face it, has never named anyone who assisted him beyond your mutual friend, ie Satanist John Pope de Locksley.

    You say you did not participate in an occult ceremony, but all the photographs taken during the actual ritual over the tomb itself show you at the forefront. There you are next to the self-proclaimed “occultists” with paraphernalia used for performing an occult ceremony laid out on the grave before you. Only one person might have actually “performed” the ritual, but you were right there alongside him when he did so. If your only purpose was to lead the “occultists” to the grave, why didn’t you stand back and let them get on with it? Why did you need to be next to them at the tomb?

    I have asked you to provide evidence for your constant bickering and personal attacks on Bishop Manchester – evidence that will stand up, not meaningless accusations without substance – and you have once again failed to do so.

  15. greenwych says:

    Re: Spirit Of The Greenwood by Barbara Green
    Actually there was no evidence other than Bishop Manchester’s word about what happened at Kirklees–there was no references or sources for anyone else involved or independent accounts of vampiric or strange occurances which were causing people to be “distressed”, and any published results as to whether Bishop Manchester’s VIGIL helped the situation in any way. Totally unscientific and subjective–as in the Highgate Vampire case, no objective back-up evidence whatsoever, but woe betide anyone who questions the Bishop’s word, or even asks an inncoent awkward question! The person who has the audacity to do such a thing will soon pay dearly for his or her mistake. Also the Bishop tried to muddy the waters and fudge the issue by writing a load of syncophantic twaddle about how he and Lady A had a very nice cosy relationship, despite him ignoring her reply that she didnt want the ISAILVR–Manchesters International Society for the Irreproducable Vampire and Werewolf Research–(or someothing like that!) vampire hunting on her land, but he carried on and hunted said vampiure——-not according to her minder David Hepworth, f riend of David’s ex secretary!

    Bishop Manchester is free to read what I write hear, who can point him in the right direction if you a re so concerned for his precious reputation. He ventured onto my facebook reading the riot act, well I am not putting up with that, so I banned and deleted him. When the day arrives, if ever it should, that the Grandiose Bishop can get down off his high horse and stop sitting in judgement like Jehovah himself over anyone who disagrees or questions his accounts of situations without getting berated as a Satanistand whatnot then maybe we might have some dialogue. I doubt that day will ever come. He is a hopeless case of
    Grandioseness.

    greenwych

  16. Vampire Research Society says:

    Re: Spirit Of The Greenwood by Barbara Green
    “Woe betide anyone who questions the Bishop’s word, or even asks an inncoent awkward question.” – Barbara Green

    I have asked you to provide evidence for your constant attacks and allegations about Bishop Manchester – evidence that will stand up, not meaningless accusations without substance – and you have yet again failed to do so.

    “He ventured onto my facebook reading the riot act, well I am not putting up with that, so I banned and deleted him.” – Barbara Green

    Completely false! Nothing from Bishop Manchester was posted on your Facebook page. He sent you two PRIVATE messages and then immediately blocked YOU because you had betrayed his confidence by sharing his private messages with David Farrant and discussed them on Farrant’s Facebook page.

    The Facebook PM exchange between you and Bishop Manchester has now been put in the public domain by the bishop, which is why I am able to reproduce it with permission in its entirety:

    The following was sent by Bishop Seán Manchester via private message at 12.00 pm June 27, 2010, to Barbara Green:

    Dear Barbara,

    You and I fell out when you decided thirteen or so years ago to establish contact with someone who has attempted to harm me, my wife, my family and my friends for a very long period of time. Everything else could be overcome, but not that act of disloyalty. You opted to take the word of this man, which of course is entirely your choice, and that is why we are in schism and shall always be so.

    That notwithstanding, there are fabrications you relentlessly publish on the internet which I and others find truly bewildering. These allegations of yours are based on nothing more than the paranoia emanating solely from your Muswell Hill friend. One of these bizarre and quite ridiculous claims is that I have been in “collusion” with Catherine Fearnley and that she acts under my “direction.” Yesterday evening you repeated the absurd notion that this female sent me a manuscript of some sort and that I “had a dickipoggy.” I must tell you that I received no such manuscript and would not want to receive anything concerning your friend in Muswell Hill.

    I heard from Catherine Fearnley soon after she broke up with her boyfriend in 2007. Her purpose for contacting me was to apologise for making so much trouble and for trying to cause me and mine harm both at the instigation of her boyfriend and of her own free will. I accepted her apology and advised her to ignore the person who was at the heart of all this enmity. I received one or two Christian greetings following her initial communication and that was all. We have not since communicated, she is not a friend and is not a member of any forum or group I administrate. Far from “colluding” or giving her “direction,” I have had no further contact with Miss Fearnley. Frankly, I find it sad that people well into their sixties feel driven to behave in this infantile manner of inventing scenarios and creating rumour. All you and your Muswell Hill friend are achieving is the spread of untrue and malicious gossip which any intelligent person would dismiss at a glance. Quite why you feel the need to perpetuate such a vendetta is difficult to comprehend, but I felt it necessary to tell you the facts in view of your claim to belong to the Christian Faith; otherwise I would not have bothered.

    Please try and understand that the only people you and your friend are hurting with this continuing hate campaign is yourselves.

    Peace by with you,

    +Seán Manchester

    “Events came later that resulted in the person mentioned making a fabricated statement to the Police (under the directions of one wearing a tea pot cosy) So yes. the story is not finished: in fact, it has only just begun!”

    – David Farrant (June 25 at 11:17pm on Farrant’s Facebook)

    “It was very odd that C sent her script to MM for his approval and he had a dickipoggy.”

    – Barbara Green (June 26, 2010 at 11:31 pm)

    http://davidfarrant.org/TheHumanTouch/?p=880#comments

    Sent by Barbara Green on 27 June 2010 at 20:35 to Bishop Seán Manchester:

    Dont uyou dare lecture me you patronising hypocrite. Please dont feel it necessary to “bother” yourself again or I shall ban you.

    I have had more lie, threats and nonsence written about myself from you than by anyone else.In fact, apart from a few Robin Hood nutcases, and that madwoman in the church—–no , not Catherine, good luck to her if she has been saved, —–I dont have any other nasty peoplebothering me

    Enjoy Pact with the Devil, you old devil!

    The following was sent by Bishop Seán Manchester via private message at 4.44 pm June 29, 2010, to Barbara Green:

    “Thanks David–I expect you will pop up on my facebook now, but I have had an uninvited intruder telling me off–on my own facebook!! who I will be deleting in due course, tata”

    – Barbara Green (June 27, 2010 at 5:47pm on Facebook)

    Dear Barbara,

    How exactly was I telling you off in my private message sent two days’ ago? All I did was set you straight on matters that appear to be of some considerable importance to you – given how many times you refer to them on the internet. And I did so in view of your stated claim to be a Christian; a Roman Catholic convert no less. Your response was to send me an extremely abusive reply and to share my private message with someone on the Left-hand Path who has been waging a hate campaign against me relentlessly for forty years.

    You must ask yourself whether your behaviour is that of a genuine Christian? Or whether you are deluding yourself?

    “You shall know them by their fruit,” and your fruit, Barbara, has proven over and over again to be poisonous.

    You are very judgemental and side with those who oppose Christ and His followers. You look for the speck in my eye almost every time you post something on an internet forum, while overlooking the enormous plank in your own eye.

    You appear to have made your pact, and must live with it. How you find this commensurate with church attendance you alone know.

    When I sent you a private message I provided you with a perfect opportunity to clarify matters by putting questions to me, but, of course, anyone who has thrown in their lot with the “father of lies” would not want to hear the truth. Indeed, they would not be able to abide the truth. This you and your Muswell Hill friend have in common. This is why you seek each other’s company via the internet.

    You ceased to be your own person the moment you allied yourself with someone convicted of diabolical goings-on; a man who became the Devil’s plaything a very long time ago. This is why you still remain lost more than thirteen years since he turned you.

    No matter what you might proclaim for public consumption to show support for your paranoid friend, you know within yourself that the daily rants against me containing innuendo and maliciousness are nothing more than fabrication originating from one source. Everything you and your atheistic associate accuse me of is without foundation, and you know it, which is why you are never able to produce a shred of evidence to back up any of your many allegations. Do you never stop to ask yourself why you are behaving this way? What have I ever really done against you apart from ceasing communication once you had become an ally of my adversary? Have I published adverse material about you in a book? Have I mocked and tried to ridicule you? So why did you?

    You must live with the certain knowledge that you, Barbara, have chosen of your own volition to bear false witness against someone who, no matter how imperfectly, follows Christ; someone who is well and truly on the Right-hand Path of discipleship.

    This is the path of your choice. I see it as the Left-hand Path of falsehood and deception. Every step along it takes you further from the truth. Some part of you already knows this. Yet you continue to walk into the darkening shadow and away from the Light.

    So be it.

    +Seán Manchester

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

    [The bishop has confirmed that he blocked Barbara Green on Facebook within a minute or two of sending the above message, which means she can neither access or see his Facebook page even though it is not set to private.]

  17. greenwych says:

    Re: Spirit Of The Greenwood by Barbara Green
    Dear Barbara,

    You and I fell out when you decided thirteen or so years ago to establish contact with someone who has attempted to harm me, my wife, my family and my friends for a very long period of time.

    ———————————————————

    You had a dickipoggy because I mentioned David in Secrets of the Grave and you threatened me with legal action from your haha “legal team” Michael Thane and Dennis Crawford, even though what I wrote about you was entirely based on what you had written about yourslef in a pompous fit.

    I DID NOT “ATTEMPT TO ESTABLISH CONTACT” with David, I merely contacted him as I am perfectly entitltled to do so–we are not in Stalins Russia— about a seperate matter anyway, and, please note, I would never have heard of the guy is you had not bombarded me with photocopies of your feud with him, which was of absolutely no interest to me-you were just recruiting as many people as you could to be on your side against David– i wasn’t the only one thus carpet bombed with antidavidproproganda

    ______________________________________________

    Everything else could be overcome, but not that act of disloyalty. You opted to take the word of this man, which of course is entirely your choice, and that is why we are in schism and shall always be so.

    ______________________________________________

    Disloyal? You , Manchester, methinks a re disloyal, and also I dont take the word of any tom dick or harry but in order to make an objective judgement you have to investigate all sides of a story. Thats what professional investigators, historians, scientist , paranormal investigators. FBI, detectives do–even Christian apologists, they INVESTIGATE which means they dont just accept the word of One person—well excepting Jesus!

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    That notwithstanding, there are fabrications you relentlessly publish on the internet which I and others find truly bewildering. These allegations of yours are based on nothing more than the paranoia emanating solely from your Muswell Hill friend. One of these bizarre and quite ridiculous claims is that I have been in “collusion” with Catherine Fearnley and that she acts under my “direction.” Yesterday evening you repeated the absurd notion that this female sent me a manuscript of some sort and that I “had a dickipoggy.” I must tell you that I received no such manuscript and would not want to receive anything concerning your friend in Muswell Hill.

    ________________________

    FRANKLY WHO CARES WHAT A FOOLISH CHOICE SHE CHOOSES TO MAKE, ANYHOW IT WASNT YOU IT WA SOMEONE ELSE WHO DIVERTED HER OFF DAVID

    _______________________________

    I heard from Catherine Fearnley soon after she broke up with her boyfriend in 2007. Her purpose for contacting me was to apologise for making so much trouble and for trying to cause me and mine harm both at the instigation of her boyfriend and of her own free will. I accepted her apology and advised her to ignore the person who was at the heart of all this enmity.

    THIS IS DICKIPOGGY FOR STARTERS CONSIDERING HER HISTORY
    OR CHOPPING AND CHANGING SIDES–WHY SHOULD SHE APOLOGISE TO YOU UNLESS SHE HAD ANOTHER GAME PLAN IN MIND?

    I received one or two Christian greetings following her initial communication and that was all. We have not since communicated, she is not a friend and is not a member of any forum or group I administrate. Far from “colluding” or giving her “direction,” I have had no further contact with Miss Fearnley. Frankly, I find it sad that people well into their sixties feel driven to behave in this infantile manner of inventing scenarios and creating rumour. All you and your Muswell Hill friend are achieving is the spread of untrue and malicious gossip which any intelligent person would dismiss at a glance.

    YES LOOK AT YOURSELF FIRST BEFORE MAKING SUCH A BOMBASTIC STATEMENT–YOU HAVE GONE ON ABOUT IT FOR AS LONG A DAVID SO THAT MAKES YOU BOTH ABOUT EQUAL !!!!!!!!!

    Quite why you feel the need to perpetuate such a vendetta is difficult to comprehend, but I felt it necessary to tell you the facts in view of your claim to belong to the Christian Faith; otherwise I would not have bothered.

    TOO KIND OF YOU TO FIND THE SPACE–YOU HAVE PRINTED PLENTY OF UNTRUE GARBAGE ABOUT MYSELF, IF YOU CAN COMPREHEND THAT!

    Please try and understand that the only people you and your friend are hurting with this continuing hate campaign is yourselves.

    NAH! WE’RE JUST TICKERTIBOO!

    Peace by with you,

    AND YOU

    GREENWYCH

    +Seán Manchester

  18. greenwych says:

    Re: Spirit Of The Greenwood by Barbara Green
    PS In diverting the subject–your usual tactic–you did not answer the questions about Kirklees.

    Does Bishop Manchester state quite clearly “I trespassed on the Kirklees Estate in 1992 in order to excorcise a vampire which was terrorising the local folk.”

    Thanks

  19. greenwych says:

    Re: Spirit Of The Greenwood by Barbara Green
    I will tell you as a general comment what is wrong with this type of person’s agenda

    They have very important notions about themselves

    They will not listen to anyone elses points of view

    They have no sense of humour

    They have no common sence

    They will not accept any critisism

    They make subjective judgments on anyone who disagrees with them, and then they accuse that person of being satanic or something dreadful.

    I will post on a link shortly to allow you to contact his infallibleness for his response. If it is sensible and calm we will then speak to him, if he is ranting and raving we will not.

    greenwych

  20. DavidFarrant says:

    Re: Spirit Of The Greenwood by Barbara Green
    More importantly, Barbara, people will have perhaps noticed that the ‘anonymous’ person talking ABOUT ‘bishop’ Manchester (he knows nothing about all this, etc, etc) has direct access to his private correspondence.
    Now, how could this be so if they were not one and the same person.
    Kinda proves my point, soesn’t it?
    Thanks Sean,

    David Farrant, Patron, Yorkshire Robin Hood Society

  21. greenwych says:

    Re: Spirit Of The Greenwood by Barbara Green
    Thank you David

    This is how the book starts–I was given the rest of the script to edit

    THE HIGHGATE VAMPIRE AND ME

    WRITTEN BY CATHERINE FEARNLEY

    AN INTRIGUING ACCOUNT OF HOW AN

    INNOCENT YOUNG WOMAN BECAME INVOLVED

    WITH TWO WELL KNOWN VAMPIRE HUNTER

    RIVALS FROM LONDON

    I won’t put any more on for fear of howls of “copyright theft”. All I will say is that Catherine told me she sent it to Manchester for his approval–I strongly advised her not to do so as I knew exactly what he would say, despite it actually turning in his favour mid-point!!! Is he actually saying he never got the script? Mr Anonymous if you could reply yeh or nay–if so then eithr he or Catherine is telling fibs, I have no reason to make a story up, I dont care one way or the other.

    The next thing I knew is that Catherine told me Manchester had “forbidden” her to publish–which I thought utterly weird to say the least—I told her to ignore him but into the bin went the book(though it was still on my computer!)

    Then there was the brouhaha with the preist and at the same time my trying to sort family affairs out—-well,you know the rest–its in your booky wooky, Pact with the Devil,

    tata greenwych

  22. DavidFarrant says:

    Re: Spirit Of The Greenwood by Barbara Green
    ‘INNOCENT’, Barbara??!!

    Yes, so was Judas Iscariot!

    David

  23. Vampire Research Society says:

    Re: Spirit Of The Greenwood by Barbara Green
    “More importantly, Barbara, people will have perhaps noticed that the ‘anonymous’ person talking ABOUT ‘bishop’ Manchester (he knows nothing about all this, etc, etc) has direct access to his private correspondence.”

    You openly admit on your own blog that spelling and grammar are not your strong point. Perhaps you should add to that list “reading” because this is what I posted on this thread yesterday:

    “The Facebook PM exchange between you and Bishop Manchester has now been put in the public domain by the bishop, which is why I am able to reproduce it.” (04/07/2010 – 11:50)

    Barbara Green took the decision to immediately share Bishop Manchester’s PRIVATE messages to her via Facebook with you. This resulted in them being instantly distorted, which is why he took the decision to put them in the public domain. Hence, anyone can read them if they can access the bishop’s group discussion forum where they were uploaded.

    “Is he actually saying he never got the script? Mr Anonymous if you could reply yeh or nay.” – Barbara Green

    “Luci” is anonymous, as are most people who post on internet forums; so why address me as “Anonymous”? Why not “Vampire Researcher” like others on this forum?

    You appear to be suffereing from the same problem as your associate, ie you have difficulty reading things properly. Either that or you cannot absorb the meaning of what is written where it conflicts with your distorted preconception. This is what Bishop Manchester wrote to you on 27 June 2010 in a private message:

    “Yesterday evening you repeated the absurd notion that this female sent me a manuscript of some sort and that I ‘had a dickipoggy.’ I must tell you that I received no such manuscript and would not want to receive anything concerning your friend in Muswell Hill.”

    It is quite clear that he did not receive the manuscript allegedly written by Farrant’s ex-girlfriend Catherine Fearnley, and, more important, that he would not want to receive something of that sort. Then, a few days later, you are asking whether the bishop got the manuscript?!! Is it any wonder you get everything wrong when you can’t even remember something you were told a week earlier?

    The fact that you refuse to deal directly with Bishop Manchester unless it is to send him abuse, and only want to publish lies and innuendo about him behind his back, is obviously why he blocked you on Facebook soon after he sent his last private message to you.

    You claim that you “deleted and banned” him. You were not an approved friend of his on Facebook so could not “delete” him. There is no banning procedure open to FB members, only blocking which is what Bishop Manchester has done to you.

  24. DavidFarrant says:

    Re: Spirit Of The Greenwood by Barbara Green
    “The fact that you refuse to deal directly with Bishop Manchester unless it is to send him abuse, and only want to publish lies and innuendo about him behind his back, is obviously why he blocked you on Facebook soon after he sent his last private message to you.”

    You DID get the manuscript that was sent to you by the irrate female, ‘anonymous’, and you previously admitted this on ‘The Cat’s Miaow’ which has been safely copied. At first you kept adamently denying this and that there had been ‘absolutly’ no contact between this person and the ‘bishop’, except when the person contacted him to ‘apolise to him’. When I accused you of deliberately lying, under pressure, you admitted that a member of the ‘vampire research society’ had apparently received the manuscript but had not read it and, realising who it was about, had immediately ‘thrown it in the bin’.

    Liars need good memories, ‘anonymous’. The irrate person told Barbara Green (who was helping her to edit this manuscript) both before, and after, she had sent this proposed book. This manuscript was all about myself (and yourself in fact!) and titled “The Hiighgate Vampire and me”.

    You personally emailed this person, ‘anonymous’ and ‘strongly asvised her’ not to attempt to publish it.

    This manuscript was later sent to me in its entirity, and I have already published its introduction on another Forum to prove that it existed.

    The person concerned was emailing a journalist at the time and telling this woman how she had been in direct contact with yourself and how you, (‘anonymous’)had advised her not to publish it. The journalist (called J) sent me all of these emails last year with permission to name her (the journalist) and to publish them.

    I may well yet still do so when I release a second edition of my recent book “Pact with the Devil”. The first one seems to have been very popular.

    You are a liar, ‘anonymous’, and so is the ‘Yorkshire lassie’ who you were in contact with.

    David Farrant, President, BPOS

  25. greenwych says:

    Re: Spirit Of The Greenwood by Barbara Green
    It is true that I do find Manchesters complicated goings on tiresome to follow or to even bother wasting much time ontrying to decyphering his latest nonsence .As for my typing, well sometimes I am in a hurry. Keep it simple. The simplest explanation is usually the true one.Not these convuluted confabulations of the bishop in which he is always the hero and everyone else the villan.
    As for the workings of facebook and what not, its not something I do much of either. Arguing the toss with Mnachester is basically a lost cause–he would swear black was white and swear it to be the truth. I really dont care in the least about Catherine’s book, as she wrote in while she was “in-between” vampire hunters it doesnt really have much to say, its all rather rambling to say the least and with a large chunk of Robin Hood thrown in, which is likely to baffle readers. However, what I say still is the case whether you liketh it or not, this is what she told me, that she had sent it to the bishop and “The Bishop says NO”-no no “–why she should require his permission to speak or print or even his approval was completely irrelevant I would have thought, but she went ahead. Why he didn’t like it, or threw it into a bin unread—for which one of his assistants would have been heavily censured if they had taken it on theselves to do such a thing—again, it sounds a load of old hogwash.

    Maybe she didn’t send it–maybe she just told me she did and blamed the bishop, but why then hasnt she published it herself?

    As usual the bishop has to make a great big to do about it and call everyone liars. Well why should I report such a thing–its nothing to me at all, it was just mentioned in passing, yet he has to go off on a dickipoggy and rant and rave at me and accuse me of stupid stuff once again. He did go onto my facebook univited to throw insults at me, for everyone to see, including David, so whats he making a fuss over that for? No wonder I deleted him and blocked him, I dont want his tea pot cosy on my site.

    greenwych

  26. Vampire Research Society says:

    Re: Spirit Of The Greenwood by Barbara Green
    “You DID get the manuscript that was sent to you by the irrate female, ‘anonymous’, and you previously admitted this on ‘The Cat’s Miaow’ which has been safely copied.”

    Demonologist is no more Bishop Manchester than am I. Once again, you are lying. Provide a link to the page and identify the date and time of the post where Demonologist “admitted” that the bishop had received the manuscript from Catherine Fearnley.

    Link for “The Cat’s Miaow”: http://baldrycat.blogspot.com

    You will be unable to find any such “admission.” It exists only in your confused and troubled brain. The fact is that Bishop Manchester was not sent the manuscript, did not receive the manuscript and has not read the manuscript.

    “Liars need good memories.”

    Indeed, they do. How many times did you say you had witnessed the Highgate entity? One, two or three times?

    http://highgatevampire.blogspot.com

    “The irrate person told Barbara Green (who was helping her to edit this manuscript) both before, and after, she had sent this proposed book.”

    Evidence! Where is the evidence? Anyone can say anything. Especially when, like you, they are compulsive liars. This is what Andy Pryce said after meeting you:

    “I have spent most of my life studying accounts of vampirism, and have indeed visited Highgate Cemetery on numerous occasions. How it has changed over the years! I am interested in research into any accounts of actual vampirism, from the writings of Dom Augustine Calmet through to modern day accounts. I have a copy of The Highgate Vampire [by Seán Manchester] which I found very interesting. I remember the events at the time they happened and the various newspaper reports. It was then that I first came across the name ‘David Farrant.’ I met him once in a pub near Highgate and found him to be a compulsive liar and there was something shifty about his mannerism. I have since warned many people to stay clear of him.” ~ Andy Pryce, Paranormal Researcher, Birmingham, United Kingdom

    “You personally emailed this person, and ‘strongly asvised her’ not to attempt to publish it.”

    I take it you are talking about Bishop Manchester and not me? If that is the case, reproduce this non-existent email with html, headers and footers. Stop talking the talk and start walking the walk!

    “You are a liar, and so is the ‘Yorkshire lassie’ who you were in contact with”

    I take it you are still talking about Bishop Manchester and not me? The bishop has stated that, apart from her apologising for effectively doing your dirty work regarding your hate campaign against him, and a couple of Christian greetings, he had no further communication with this person.

    “He did go onto my facebook univited to throw insults at me” – Barbara Green

    What are you talking about? He did not go onto your Facebook. If he did everyone would be able to see his comments. All he did was send you a private message via Facebook to put the record straight regarding the manuscript he did not receive and one or two other things. This was a private communication which you chose to betray by sharing it with your “partner in crime” Farrant.

    “The simplest explanation is usually the true one.” – Barbara Green

    Who exactly has been obsessing about these matters year in and year out? Who self-publishes pamphlets filled with hateful abuse and stolen photographs with libellous attributions? Who repeats over and over again fabricated nonsense, poisonous innuendo and obvious misconceptions?

    The simplest explanation is that you and Farrant are birds of a feather who are twisted and delight in spreading malicious gossip because you have nothing better to do.

  27. greenwych says:

    Re: Spirit Of The Greenwood by Barbara Green

    Quote, unquote:

    ” Who exactly has been obsessing about these matters year in and year out? Who self-publishes pamphlets filled with hateful abuse and stolen photographs with libellous attributions? Who repeats over and over again fabricated nonsense, poisonous innuendo and obvious misconceptions?”

    One person only,need I name names?

    And you, writer of this trash on supposedly someone elses behalf and if so has nothing to do with the matter –yet another anoymous mouthpiece,need actually look no further than the mirror!

    greenwych

  28. Vampire Research Society says:

    Re: Spirit Of The Greenwood by Barbara Green
    Quote, unquote:

    “Who exactly has been obsessing about these matters year in and year out? Who self-publishes pamphlets filled with hateful abuse and stolen photographs with libellous attributions? Who repeats over and over again fabricated nonsense, poisonous innuendo and obvious misconceptions?”

    One person and one person only: David Farrant.

    Examine Farrant’s list of self-published tracts, pamphlets and booklets. Ninety-nine percent of them are devoted to attacking Bishop Manchester, his family, friends and colleagues. Look at Farrant’s latest pamphlet. What is it about? Who is it attacking? Have the photographs of the bishop been infringed and used illegally? Of course they have!

    To recap:

    Thirteen or so years ago you became an associate and supporter of Farrant, a man imprisoned in the 1970s for desecration and vandalism at Highgate Cemetery, and this was the reason why Bishop Seán Manchester would have nothing more to do with you. The situation was compounded by production of your self-published Secrets of the Grave booklet where abusive material about the bishop appears. You published grotesque cartoons of Bishop Seán Manchester which you commissioned from Christine Demant. A privately taken photograph of Bishop Manchester in Highgate Cemetery was supplied by Robert Brautigam who, due to his Crowleyite leanings, was now colluding with Farrant. The caption beneath this picture was intended to give offence to the bishop.

    Why would you include in your booklet a picture of Bishop Seán Manchester when you did not include pictures of people you considered far more important at that time? No pictures of John Pope de Locksley or Robert Brautigam are in evidence; nor their mutual friend Farrant who became the “patron” of your Yorkshire-based Robin Hood Society in February 2004. So why was Bishop Seán Manchester singled out as being more deserving of illustrative material?

    You have met Bishop Seán Manchester only twice. These accidental meetings took place at the same charity venue in South Hertfordshire on each occasion where Bishop Manchester and his wife were invited guests. The first time you met the couple was in May 1987 and second and last time was in May 1988. Bishop Seán Manchester agreed to lend his name to charity raising ideas you put forward in connection with your Yorkshire Robin Hood Society. You used his name on your letter-headed notepaper to this end, but when it became apparent that no funds raised by you were being donated to any charitable institution, he started to distance himself from your “history society” whose membership dwindled and disappeared during the same period. None of your original members (who had all left by the time you had become a Quisling) ever returned.

    The draft of your booklet Secrets of the Grave was produced in 1998, a copy of which you forwarded to Bishop Manchester in May of that year. Bishop Seán Manchester found himself ridiculed, misrepresented and parodied within its pages. Not surprisingly, he made his displeasure known to you. He also noticed that you included Farrant’s name in the “acknowledgements” even though Farrant had contributed nothing to your booklet and was not even vaguely interested in YRHS activities beyond the fact that his archnemesis was somehow involved.

    From that point Bishop Seán Manchester dissociated himself entirely from you and your activities. Your booklet, when it was finally printed, contained grotesque cartoons intended to give offence to the bishop, plus sarcastic remarks aimed at ridiculing him. This is how you rewarded someone whose only mistake was to try and lend help to a cause by allowing the use of his name.

  29. greenwych says:

    Re: Spirit Of The Greenwood by Barbara Green
    Gazetteer
    England
    Scotland
    Wales
    Northern Ireland
    Republic of Ireland
    Mysterious World
    Articles
    Ancient Sites
    ArticlesBurial MoundsChalk Hill FiguresEarly ChristianityEarth WorksStanding StonesStone CirclesWellsCryptozoology
    Aquatic MonstersArticlesBig Cats
    Beast of BexleyBeast of EssexFeatured SitesFestivals
    JanuaryFebruaryMarchAprilMayJuneJulyAugustSeptemberOctoberNovemberDecemberFolklore
    ArticlesFairies
    English FairiesIrish FairiesMermaidsScottish FairiesWelsh FairiesFolktales
    English FolktalesIrish FolktalesRobin HoodScottish FolktalesWelsh FolktalesTall TalesHauntings
    Anniversary GhostsApparitionsArticlesBlack DogsCivil War HauntingsGhost ShipsGhost StoriesGreen LadiesHaunted BattlefieldsHaunted Pubs and HotelsJacobite GhostsPhotographed GhostsPoltergiestsRoad GhostsRoman HauntingsScreaming SkullsWWI HauntingsWWII HauntingsLegends
    ArticlesBuried TreasureDevilDragonsGiantsKing ArthurMerlinOther MysteriesPantheons
    Celtic PantheonsNordic PantheonsRoman PantheonsSaxon PantheonsThe Occult
    ArticlesBiographiesGroupsTraditions
    SpiritualismVoodooWitchcraftUFOs
    AbductionsArticlesSightingsBook Reviews.Community
    Featured GroupsForumGroups
    English Groups
    East AngliaEast MidlandsLondonNorth EastNorth WestSouth EastSouth WestWest MidlandsYorkshire & HumbersideGroups Overseas
    Canadian Groups
    British ColumbiaOntarioQuebecIrish GroupsNorthern Irish GroupsScottish GroupsWelsh GroupsFacebook group.Business Directory
    Accommodation
    Bed and Breakfast (B&B)HotelsSelf CateringCamping and CaravanFood & DrinkInvestigationsOnline Stores
    Online BooksOnline ClothingOnline EsotericaOnline GiftsOnline JewelleryPhotographyPlaces to Visit
    CastlesMuseumsStately HomesZoos and Safari ParksRadio StationsRe-enactment GroupsShops
    BooksClothingEsotericaGiftsJewelleryTours
    Day TripsGhost ToursHolidaysShort BreaksMysterious Britain Store.

    Random Article

    Longleat House
    Longleat House is the home of the Thynne family and

    Add new comment
    You are hereSpirit Of The Greenwood by Barbara Green

    Spirit Of The Greenwood by Barbara Green
    ViewRepeats

    ——————————————————————————–

    Robin Hoods Grave –a modern mystery! Even more terrifying than the Blair Witch Project and a thousand times more intriguing than any Brother Caedfel mystery, SECRETS OF THE GRAVE and it’s sequel SPIRIT OF THE GREENWOOD reveal, for the first time, the true story of the life and death of Robin Hood. Enter the dark, mysterious woods of Kirklees in West Yorkshire, and visit, with writer historian Barbara Green, the forest of Barnsdale where Robin roamed and the ruined priory gatehouse of Kirklees Nunnery where he was treacherously slain by the hand of an evil nun. Written testimonies from those who have experienced the ghostly presence of Robin and his comrades, whose spirits haunt this ancient forest, form the basis of both books, while the life of Robin, as told in SPIRIT OF THE GREENWOOD, accords fully with the Lytell Geste,(Robin’s first biography) printed in the fifteenth century. This, one might think, could be the basis for a best selling book, but such seems to not to be the case, for ,according to the “experts” the public do not want to knw the truth and prefer to be fed the myth of Sherwood Forest and the dastardy deeds of the Sheriff of Nottingham, not to mention Richard the Lionheart, who does not even belong in the story at all!

    The mystery of Robin’s gruesome death at Kirklees, it would seem, is not the only inexplicable phenomenon surrounding the legend ! Why ARE people prevented from learning the true facts about the oulaw’s life, due to the propogation of a fantasy by the media, and why is his famous grave at Kirklees, kept in a state of secrecy and neglect – and who is responsible for this bizarre situation? Dare you ask ? Dare you investigate and…………. dare YOU print the truth ? Or is Robin Hood’s legend to remain distorted out of all recognition, and the real man lost to future generations forever ?

    “No one could see anything in the dense, suffocating blackness, but following Mark’s directions we stumbled on forward through the barrier of writhing, intertwining bushes and trees; then suddenly, we found ourselves in a clearing, where, looming out of the gloom, rearing up before us in the light of our flickering torches, a massive,broken edifice was revealed . A huge ship of stone, wrecked in the everglades of Kirklees, listing crazily into the leaping shadows. We stood transfixed with fear and awe as we gazed upon the fallen pillars and twisted railings which were all that remained of Yorkshire’s buried treasure -Robin Hood’s Grave.”

    “My name is Ozymandias,king of kings:
    Look on my works, ye Mighty and despair!”
    Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
    Of that colossal wreck,boundless and bare
    The lone and level sands stretch far away.”
    SHELLEY

    Robin Hood’s death is recorded in the ballad ROBIN HOOD, HIS DEATH AND BURIAL and briefly in the GESTE. According to the literature Robin is taken ill and decides to go to Kirklees Priory to be nursed by the prioress, who was “nye of his kin” and reputedly skilled in healing. On the way to the nunnery Robin is cursed by a witch – for reasons unknown, as the ballad is unfortunately incomplete. When Robin arrives at the nunnery, Little John, who has accompanied him, is sent away and the prioress proceeds to bleed Robin by opening a vein in his arm – standard medieval medicine, though unlikely to do anyone much good !

    “Shee laid the blood irons to Robin Hood’s vaine
    Alacke the more pitye!
    And perct the vaine, and let out the bloode,
    That full red was to see. At first it bled,the thicke,thicke blood,
    And afterwards the thinne,
    And well then wist good Robin Hoode,
    Treason there was within.”
    DEATH, V 16-17

    2) According to the legend, Robin summons Little John with three blasts of his trusty hunting horn and the giant rushes to his comrade’ s assistance, but alas,he is too late and Robin is already dying. With his last ounce of strength Robin fires his last arrow from the priory gatehouse window, requesting that where it falls he should be buried. Little John is beside himself with rage and grief and threatens to raze the nunnery and all its inhabitants to the ground.

    “A boon,a boon,” cried Little John,
    “Master ,I beg of thee.”
    “What is that boon,”quoth Robin ,
    “Little John,thou begs of me?”
    “It is to burn fair Kirkley Hall,
    “And all their nunnery.”
    “I ne’er hurt fair maid in all my life
    “Nor at my end shall it be;
    “But give me my bent bow in my hand,
    “And my broad arrows I’ll let flee.
    “And where this arrow is taken up,
    “There shall my grave digged be,
    “Lay me a green sod under my head,
    “And another at my feet.
    “And lay my bent bow by my side
    “Which was my music sweet,
    “And make my grave of gravel and green,
    “Which is most right and meet.
    “Let me have length and breadth enough
    “With a green sod under my head:
    “That they may say when I am dead
    “HERE LIES BOLD ROBIN HOOD.”

    The grave, six hundred yards from the gatehouse, was enclosed in iron railings in the nineteenth century. Today it is neglected and overgrown and little known to the general public. It bears the inscription:

    Here underneath dis laitl stean
    Laz robert earl of Huntintun
    Ne’er arcir ver as hie sa geud
    An pipl kauld im robin heud
    Sick utlawz as his as iz men
    Vil england nivr si agen
    THE DEATH OF ROBIN HOOD
    At first it bled the thicke thicke blood
    And afterwards the thinne
    And well then wist good Robin Hood
    Treason there was within

    3) The death of Robin Hood is a well known legend. He was treacherously bled to death by the wicked prioress of Kirklees nunnery, a small Cistercian house near Brighouse, West Yorkshire. The outlaw’s gory and unheroic end is shrouded in mystery. Who was the evil nun and why did she commit so foul a murder? What was the role of Red Roger of Doncaster, who was present at the scene of crime? Was he a priest and also the prioress’s lover? Who WAS the prioress? Was she Dame Elizabeth de Stainton, whose grave can still be seen at Kirklees, or was it Sister Mary Startin, who died of the Black Death in 1350?

    All that is left of this medieval whodunit is a ruined grave, hidden in deep woodland, and the derelict priory gatehouse of Kirklees where Robin was so gruesomely done to death. Was the famous outlaw a vitim of thwarted passion,pagan sacrifice, bad nursing, accident, natural causes or – vampirism ? The entire area where this horrific drama took place is shrouded in ,according to one old book, ” …..a mystery which local people only reluctantly tried to penetrate.The mystery was helped physically by the thick shroud of trees that surrounded the place and was sustained by local tales of prioresses and nuns and of the death of Robin Hood…….”
    THE HAUNTING OF ROBIN HOOD’S GRAVE

    “Terribilis Est Locus Iste” Dreadful is this place – Abbe Berenger Sauniere, Renne-le-Chateau.

    “The Armytage family lived over the brow of the hill on a splendid site once occupied by Cistercian nuns. It was called Kirklees. There was more than an insularity which set the mansion apart. There was a mystery about it which local people only reluctantly tried to penetrate. The mystery was helped physically by the thick shroud of trees that surrounded the place and was sustained by local tales of ghosts of prioresses and nuns and or the death of Robin Hood whose grave is so imperturbably marked as lying within Kirklees grounds in spite of any facts which might suggest to the contrary. ” THE LAND OF LOST CONTENT.

    This would appear to be the first reported mention of ghostly activity around Robin Hood’s Grave, but considering the history of Robin’s death – cursed by a witch on his way to the nunnery, murdered by an apostate nun and cast into an unhallowed grave – it is hardly surprising that the site is reputed to have unquiet spirits hovering around. An elderly lady, Mrs Edith Ellis, witnessed silver arrows in the sky above Kirklees when visiting her old aunt at Hartshead in the early years of the last century. She also reports hearing Robin calling for Marian.

    Another sighting was made by a tenant farmer of Kirklees in 1926. “One day,” he recalls, ” I was sitting on the grave shooting rabbits. As I was about to shoot I felt a tap on my shoulder, and my shotgun went off accidentally, removing two of my front teeth on its recoil. There was nobody to be seen at the time. On another occasion I was on my way home from the Three Nuns. As I was walking through the woods something fell out of a tree and knocked me to the ground. When I got up I could see the old gatehouse. In the window I could clearly see a man with a bow. My family always said it was the drink, but it was Robin Hood’s ghost.”

    In 1963 guitarist Roger Williams took an unofficial stroll up to Robin’s grave with a friend. About twenty yards from the grave he saw a white robed woman who suddenly seemed to glide towards the two men. What made Roger’s hair stand on end was how silently she moved over the twigs and bracken. At about five yards from Roger the woman stopped and stared at him with “dark,mad eyes.” Then she moved away and vanished. It was 2.30 p.m. on a bright,sunny day. Roger Williams saw the same apparition again in 1972, in full daylight, and again she stopped a few yards from him and his companion. This time Roger remembered a few more details. The woman was wearing a long white dress with a square neck and long sleeves which accords with the habit of a Cistercian nun. Again she looked at him angrily before moving off, but the eerie sequel to this experience was that Roger’s house then experienced a series of strange noises and bangings. After this, Roger swore that “wild horses would not drag me up there again.”

    Mark Gibbons, one of the founder members of Gravewatch, had a similar experience
    in 1998. With other members of the group he had gone up to try and find Robin’s grave one moonlit night, but they had got lost. Suddenly Mark saw a white figure pointing in a certain direction – which turned out to be where the grave was situated. Mark also experienced a sensation of great evil and hatred.

    Shortly after this a reporter Judith Broadbent, from the Dewsbury Reporter, and a photographer colleague, Sue Ellis were allowed to visit the gravesite by the owner. While wandering around she heard heavy footsteps behind her and she was pulled to the ground by invisible forces. She shouted “get away” and her friend came rushing to help her. Her camera had jammed while trying to photograph the grave. A week later Sue was taken seriously ill and was paralysed f from the neck downwards for two weeks. The two reporters later wrote this article up for Yorkshire Life magazine, much of its content being taken from Yorkshire Robin Hood Society literature, including the next sighting, which appeared in THE UNEXPLAINED magazine in 1992, prior to the publication of their article.

    This was when vampires entered the arena, introduced to the increasing enigmatic situation by a Bishop of the Holy Grail Church and patron of the Yorkshire Robin Hood Society. In 1992 the Bishop and two colleagues, attempted an exorcism at Kirklees. This had come about as a result of the Yorkshire Robin Hood Society asking for the site to be blessed by the local vicar. Unfortunately permission to perform such a ceremony had been unequivocally refused to both clergymen. The Bishop, however, was made of sterner stuff than the local pastor ! He was renowned for his involvement in the notorious Highgate Vampire affair in the nineteen seventies and it occurred to him that vampires might be behind the legend of Robin being bled to death and this needed urgent spiritual intervention – and he was the man for the job, with or without official sanction ! Suffice to say that on his clandestine visit to the grave the bishop came across the body of a blood drained goat, diabolical rune signs of the priory gatehouse, fingr width holes in the ground round the grave – suggesting vampiric activity – and was confronted by a darkly clad woman who turned into a hag with red staring eyes.

    A further sighting by another nocturnal visitor proved a terrifying experience when she saw two figures hovering in the trees surrounding the grave, who she took to be the evil prioress and her paramour Red Roger of Doncaster. ” I felt, and saw, what I can only describe streams of evil pouring out of the trees towards me” the witness stated. A lady from Nottingham, who visited the grave in the summer of 2000, experienced a psychic communication with Robin at the graveside, as did Robin Hood expert John de Locksley of the London Robin Hood Club, who also boldly battled through the giant ferns, murderous brambles and other lethal obstacles of the Kirklees rain forest to stand by his hero’s grave one wild,wet October night the same year !

    It is true that Robin’s grave was excavated in an amateurish way by a Victorian Armytage (who was reputed to be in his cups at the time) and the ground beneath found to be undisturbed, but the many historical documents naming Kirklees as Robin’s final resting place cannot be ignored. The fact is, his bones could lie anywhere on that hillside, while a gravestone resembling the original one drawn by Dr Johnstone, is to be found in nearby Hartshead churchyard – to where it may have been moved during the Civil War.

    5) Many visitors to the grave have recorded their experiences for posterity, including the following quote from a Victorian tourist :
    “I had the strangest emotions when I first stood over the grave of this old forest hero. I stood there and had no words, nor can I find any now to tell what my feelings were. Bravehearted Robin ! Thou hast found a fit resting place in this glorious park, among these solemn yews and silent trees .”A hundred years later it is a different story:
    “There it was, looming out of the dark, a massive, broken edifice, a huge ship of stone, wrecked in the everglades of Kirklees. Fallen pillars and twisted railings were were all that remained on Yorkshire’s buried treasure. We had found Robin Hood’s Grave.”
    MARK GIBBONS, SECRETS OF THE GRAVE.

    Maybe the last word should be with Victorian poet, George Searle Phillips, a friend of the Brontes, who visited the grave in 1848, and wrote an epic poem, a small section of which is printed below :

    Tread lightly o’er the earth and speak no word
    Till the Great Spirit doth unloose your tongues
    For where those yew trees nod their funereal plumes
    Upon the highest platform of the hill,
    Lies gentle Robin Hood, his mighty heart
    All muffled up in dust and his bright eyes
    Quenched in eternal darkness. Never more
    Shall the woods echo to his bugle horn,
    Or his unerring arrow strike the deer
    Swift flying, till it hits the bloody grass

    Authorship
    greenwych
    Tags EnglandWest YorkshireYorkshireBook ReviewKirkleesReview
    Sun, 04/07/2010 – 18:58 #21 .greenwych
    Online Joined: 5 Jul 2009 .Re: Spirit Of The Greenwood by Barbara Green
    Thank you David

    This is how the book starts–I was given the rest of the script to edit

    THE HIGHGATE VAMPIRE AND ME

    WRITTEN BY CATHERINE FEARNLEY

    AN INTRIGUING ACCOUNT OF HOW AN

    INNOCENT YOUNG WOMAN BECAME INVOLVED

    WITH TWO WELL KNOWN VAMPIRE HUNTER

    RIVALS FROM LONDON

    I won’t put any more on for fear of howls of “copyright theft”. All I will say is that Catherine told me she sent it to Manchester for his approval–I strongly advised her not to do so as I knew exactly what he would say, despite it actually turning in his favour mid-point!!! Is he actually saying he never got the script? Mr Anonymous if you could reply yeh or nay–if so then eithr he or Catherine is telling fibs, I have no reason to make a story up, I dont care one way or the other.

    The next thing I knew is that Catherine told me Manchester had “forbidden” her to publish–which I thought utterly weird to say the least—I told her to ignore him but into the bin went the book(though it was still on my computer!)

    Then there was the brouhaha with the preist and at the same time my trying to sort family affairs out—-well,you know the rest–its in your booky wooky, Pact with the Devil,

    tata greenwych
    .Top ..Sun, 04/07/2010 – 20:06 #22 .DavidFarrant
    Offline Joined: 6 Mar 2010 .Re: Spirit Of The Greenwood by Barbara Green
    ‘INNOCENT’, Barbara??!!

    Yes, so was Judas Iscariot!

    David
    .Top ..Mon, 05/07/2010 – 09:33 #23 .Vampire Researc…
    Offline Joined: 8 Jun 2010 .Re: Spirit Of The Greenwood by Barbara Green
    “More importantly, Barbara, people will have perhaps noticed that the ‘anonymous’ person talking ABOUT ‘bishop’ Manchester (he knows nothing about all this, etc, etc) has direct access to his private correspondence.”

    You openly admit on your own blog that spelling and grammar are not your strong point. Perhaps you should add to that list “reading” because this is what I posted on this thread yesterday:

    “The Facebook PM exchange between you and Bishop Manchester has now been put in the public domain by the bishop, which is why I am able to reproduce it.” (04/07/2010 – 11:50)

    Barbara Green took the decision to immediately share Bishop Manchester’s PRIVATE messages to her via Facebook with you. This resulted in them being instantly distorted, which is why he took the decision to put them in the public domain. Hence, anyone can read them if they can access the bishop’s group discussion forum where they were uploaded.

    “Is he actually saying he never got the script? Mr Anonymous if you could reply yeh or nay.” – Barbara Green

    “Luci” is anonymous, as are most people who post on internet forums; so why address me as “Anonymous”? Why not “Vampire Researcher” like others on this forum?

    You appear to be suffereing from the same problem as your associate, ie you have difficulty reading things properly. Either that or you cannot absorb the meaning of what is written where it conflicts with your distorted preconception. This is what Bishop Manchester wrote to you on 27 June 2010 in a private message:

    “Yesterday evening you repeated the absurd notion that this female sent me a manuscript of some sort and that I ‘had a dickipoggy.’ I must tell you that I received no such manuscript and would not want to receive anything concerning your friend in Muswell Hill.”

    It is quite clear that he did not receive the manuscript allegedly written by Farrant’s ex-girlfriend Catherine Fearnley, and, more important, that he would not want to receive something of that sort. Then, a few days later, you are asking whether the bishop got the manuscript?!! Is it any wonder you get everything wrong when you can’t even remember something you were told a week earlier?

    The fact that you refuse to deal directly with Bishop Manchester unless it is to send him abuse, and only want to publish lies and innuendo about him behind his back, is obviously why he blocked you on Facebook soon after he sent his last private message to you.

    You claim that you “deleted and banned” him. You were not an approved friend of his on Facebook so could not “delete” him. There is no banning procedure open to FB members, only blocking which is what Bishop Manchester has done to you.
    .Top ..Mon, 05/07/2010 – 13:41 #24 .DavidFarrant
    Offline Joined: 6 Mar 2010 .Re: Spirit Of The Greenwood by Barbara Green
    “The fact that you refuse to deal directly with Bishop Manchester unless it is to send him abuse, and only want to publish lies and innuendo about him behind his back, is obviously why he blocked you on Facebook soon after he sent his last private message to you.”

    You DID get the manuscript that was sent to you by the irrate female, ‘anonymous’, and you previously admitted this on ‘The Cat’s Miaow’ which has been safely copied. At first you kept adamently denying this and that there had been ‘absolutly’ no contact between this person and the ‘bishop’, except when the person contacted him to ‘apolise to him’. When I accused you of deliberately lying, under pressure, you admitted that a member of the ‘vampire research society’ had apparently received the manuscript but had not read it and, realising who it was about, had immediately ‘thrown it in the bin’.

    Liars need good memories, ‘anonymous’. The irrate person told Barbara Green (who was helping her to edit this manuscript) both before, and after, she had sent this proposed book. This manuscript was all about myself (and yourself in fact!) and titled “The Hiighgate Vampire and me”.

    You personally emailed this person, ‘anonymous’ and ‘strongly asvised her’ not to attempt to publish it.

    This manuscript was later sent to me in its entirity, and I have already published its introduction on another Forum to prove that it existed.

    The person concerned was emailing a journalist at the time and telling this woman how she had been in direct contact with yourself and how you, (‘anonymous’)had advised her not to publish it. The journalist (called J) sent me all of these emails last year with permission to name her (the journalist) and to publish them.

    I may well yet still do so when I release a second edition of my recent book “Pact with the Devil”. The first one seems to have been very popular.

    You are a liar, ‘anonymous’, and so is the ‘Yorkshire lassie’ who you were in contact with.

    David Farrant, President, BPOS
    .Top ..Mon, 05/07/2010 – 14:04 #25 .greenwych
    Online Joined: 5 Jul 2009 .Re: Spirit Of The Greenwood by Barbara Green
    It is true that I do find Manchesters complicated goings on tiresome to follow or to even bother wasting much time ontrying to decyphering his latest nonsence .As for my typing, well sometimes I am in a hurry. Keep it simple. The simplest explanation is usually the true one.Not these convuluted confabulations of the bishop in which he is always the hero and everyone else the villan.
    As for the workings of facebook and what not, its not something I do much of either. Arguing the toss with Mnachester is basically a lost cause–he would swear black was white and swear it to be the truth. I really dont care in the least about Catherine’s book, as she wrote in while she was “in-between” vampire hunters it doesnt really have much to say, its all rather rambling to say the least and with a large chunk of Robin Hood thrown in, which is likely to baffle readers. However, what I say still is the case whether you liketh it or not, this is what she told me, that she had sent it to the bishop and “The Bishop says NO”-no no “–why she should require his permission to speak or print or even his approval was completely irrelevant I would have thought, but she went ahead. Why he didn’t like it, or threw it into a bin unread—for which one of his assistants would have been heavily censured if they had taken it on theselves to do such a thing—again, it sounds a load of old hogwash.

    Maybe she didn’t send it–maybe she just told me she did and blamed the bishop, but why then hasnt she published it herself?

    As usual the bishop has to make a great big to do about it and call everyone liars. Well why should I report such a thing–its nothing to me at all, it was just mentioned in passing, yet he has to go off on a dickipoggy and rant and rave at me and accuse me of stupid stuff once again. He did go onto my facebook univited to throw insults at me, for everyone to see, including David, so whats he making a fuss over that for? No wonder I deleted him and blocked him, I dont want his tea pot cosy on my site.

    greenwych
    .Top ..Mon, 05/07/2010 – 15:50 #26 .Vampire Researc…
    Offline Joined: 8 Jun 2010 .Re: Spirit Of The Greenwood by Barbara Green
    “You DID get the manuscript that was sent to you by the irrate female, ‘anonymous’, and you previously admitted this on ‘The Cat’s Miaow’ which has been safely copied.”

    Demonologist is no more Bishop Manchester than am I. Once again, you are lying. Provide a link to the page and identify the date and time of the post where Demonologist “admitted” that the bishop had received the manuscript from Catherine Fearnley.

    Link for “The Cat’s Miaow”: http://baldrycat.blogspot.com

    You will be unable to find any such “admission.” It exists only in your confused and troubled brain. The fact is that Bishop Manchester was not sent the manuscript, did not receive the manuscript and has not read the manuscript.

    “Liars need good memories.”

    Indeed, they do. How many times did you say you had witnessed the Highgate entity? One, two or three times?

    http://highgatevampire.blogspot.com

    “The irrate person told Barbara Green (who was helping her to edit this manuscript) both before, and after, she had sent this proposed book.”

    Evidence! Where is the evidence? Anyone can say anything. Especially when, like you, they are compulsive liars. This is what Andy Pryce said after meeting you:

    “I have spent most of my life studying accounts of vampirism, and have indeed visited Highgate Cemetery on numerous occasions. How it has changed over the years! I am interested in research into any accounts of actual vampirism, from the writings of Dom Augustine Calmet through to modern day accounts. I have a copy of The Highgate Vampire [by Seán Manchester] which I found very interesting. I remember the events at the time they happened and the various newspaper reports. It was then that I first came across the name ‘David Farrant.’ I met him once in a pub near Highgate and found him to be a compulsive liar and there was something shifty about his mannerism. I have since warned many people to stay clear of him.” ~ Andy Pryce, Paranormal Researcher, Birmingham, United Kingdom

    “You personally emailed this person, and ‘strongly asvised her’ not to attempt to publish it.”

    I take it you are talking about Bishop Manchester and not me? If that is the case, reproduce this non-existent email with html, headers and footers. Stop talking the talk and start walking the walk!

    “You are a liar, and so is the ‘Yorkshire lassie’ who you were in contact with”

    I take it you are still talking about Bishop Manchester and not me? The bishop has stated that, apart from her apologising for effectively doing your dirty work regarding your hate campaign against him, and a couple of Christian greetings, he had no further communication with this person.

    “He did go onto my facebook univited to throw insults at me” – Barbara Green

    What are you talking about? He did not go onto your Facebook. If he did everyone would be able to see his comments. All he did was send you a private message via Facebook to put the record straight regarding the manuscript he did not receive and one or two other things. This was a private communication which you chose to betray by sharing it with your “partner in crime” Farrant.

    “The simplest explanation is usually the true one.” – Barbara Green

    Who exactly has been obsessing about these matters year in and year out? Who self-publishes pamphlets filled with hateful abuse and stolen photographs with libellous attributions? Who repeats over and over again fabricated nonsense, poisonous innuendo and obvious misconceptions?

    The simplest explanation is that you and Farrant are birds of a feather who are twisted and delight in spreading malicious gossip because you have nothing better to do.
    .Top ..Mon, 05/07/2010 – 16:48 #27 .greenwych
    Online Joined: 5 Jul 2009 .Re: Spirit Of The Greenwood by Barbara Green
    Quote, unquote:

    ” Who exactly has been obsessing about these matters year in and year out? Who self-publishes pamphlets filled with hateful abuse and stolen photographs with libellous attributions? Who repeats over and over again fabricated nonsense, poisonous innuendo and obvious misconceptions?”

    One person only,need I name names?

    And you, writer of this trash on supposedly someone elses behalf and if so has nothing to do with the matter –yet another anoymous mouthpiece,need actually look no further than the mirror!

    greenwych
    .Top ..Tue, 06/07/2010 – 10:22 #28 .Vampire Researc…
    Offline Joined: 8 Jun 2010 .Re: Spirit Of The Greenwood by Barbara Green
    Quote, unquote:

    “Who exactly has been obsessing about these matters year in and year out? Who self-publishes pamphlets filled with hateful abuse and stolen photographs with libellous attributions? Who repeats over and over again fabricated nonsense, poisonous innuendo and obvious misconceptions?”

    One person and one person only: David Farrant.

    Examine Farrant’s list of self-published tracts, pamphlets and booklets. Ninety-nine percent of them are devoted to attacking Bishop Manchester, his family, friends and colleagues. Look at Farrant’s latest pamphlet. What is it about? Who is it attacking? Have the photographs of the bishop been infringed and used illegally? Of course they have!

    To recap:

    Thirteen or so years ago you became an associate and supporter of Farrant, a man imprisoned in the 1970s for desecration and vandalism at Highgate Cemetery, and this was the reason why Bishop Seán Manchester would have nothing more to do with you. The situation was compounded by production of your self-published Secrets of the Grave booklet where abusive material about the bishop appears. You published grotesque cartoons of Bishop Seán Manchester which you commissioned from Christine Demant. A privately taken photograph of Bishop Manchester in Highgate Cemetery was supplied by Robert Brautigam who, due to his Crowleyite leanings, was now colluding with Farrant. The caption beneath this picture was intended to give offence to the bishop.

    Why would you include in your booklet a picture of Bishop Seán Manchester when you did not include pictures of people you considered far more important at that time? No pictures of John Pope de Locksley or Robert Brautigam are in evidence; nor their mutual friend Farrant who became the “patron” of your Yorkshire-based Robin Hood Society in February 2004. So why was Bishop Seán Manchester singled out as being more deserving of illustrative material?

    You have met Bishop Seán Manchester only twice. These accidental meetings took place at the same charity venue in South Hertfordshire on each occasion where Bishop Manchester and his wife were invited guests. The first time you met the couple was in May 1987 and second and last time was in May 1988. Bishop Seán Manchester agreed to lend his name to charity raising ideas you put forward in connection with your Yorkshire Robin Hood Society. You used his name on your letter-headed notepaper to this end, but when it became apparent that no funds raised by you were being donated to any charitable institution, he started to distance himself from your “history society” whose membership dwindled and disappeared during the same period. None of your original members (who had all left by the time you had become a Quisling) ever returned.

    The draft of your booklet Secrets of the Grave was produced in 1998, a copy of which you forwarded to Bishop Manchester in May of that year. Bishop Seán Manchester found himself ridiculed, misrepresented and parodied within its pages. Not surprisingly, he made his displeasure known to you. He also noticed that you included Farrant’s name in the “acknowledgements” even though Farrant had contributed nothing to your booklet and was not even vaguely interested in YRHS activities beyond the fact that his archnemesis was somehow involved.

    From that point Bishop Seán Manchester dissociated himself entirely from you and your activities. Your booklet, when it was finally printed, contained grotesque cartoons intended to give offence to the bishop, plus sarcastic remarks aimed at ridiculing him. This is how you rewarded someone whose only mistake was to try and lend help to a cause by allowing the use of his name.

  30. greenwych says:

    Re: Spirit Of The Greenwood by Barbara Green
    Gazetteer
    England
    Scotland
    Wales
    Northern Ireland
    Republic of Ireland
    Mysterious World
    Articles
    Ancient Sites
    ArticlesBurial MoundsChalk Hill FiguresEarly ChristianityEarth WorksStanding StonesStone CirclesWellsCryptozoology
    Aquatic MonstersArticlesBig Cats
    Beast of BexleyBeast of EssexFeatured SitesFestivals
    JanuaryFebruaryMarchAprilMayJuneJulyAugustSeptemberOctoberNovemberDecemberFolklore
    ArticlesFairies
    English FairiesIrish FairiesMermaidsScottish FairiesWelsh FairiesFolktales
    English FolktalesIrish FolktalesRobin HoodScottish FolktalesWelsh FolktalesTall TalesHauntings
    Anniversary GhostsApparitionsArticlesBlack DogsCivil War HauntingsGhost ShipsGhost StoriesGreen LadiesHaunted BattlefieldsHaunted Pubs and HotelsJacobite GhostsPhotographed GhostsPoltergiestsRoad GhostsRoman HauntingsScreaming SkullsWWI HauntingsWWII HauntingsLegends
    ArticlesBuried TreasureDevilDragonsGiantsKing ArthurMerlinOther MysteriesPantheons
    Celtic PantheonsNordic PantheonsRoman PantheonsSaxon PantheonsThe Occult
    ArticlesBiographiesGroupsTraditions
    SpiritualismVoodooWitchcraftUFOs
    AbductionsArticlesSightingsBook Reviews.Community
    Featured GroupsForumGroups
    English Groups
    East AngliaEast MidlandsLondonNorth EastNorth WestSouth EastSouth WestWest MidlandsYorkshire & HumbersideGroups Overseas
    Canadian Groups
    British ColumbiaOntarioQuebecIrish GroupsNorthern Irish GroupsScottish GroupsWelsh GroupsFacebook group.Business Directory
    Accommodation
    Bed and Breakfast (B&B)HotelsSelf CateringCamping and CaravanFood & DrinkInvestigationsOnline Stores
    Online BooksOnline ClothingOnline EsotericaOnline GiftsOnline JewelleryPhotographyPlaces to Visit
    CastlesMuseumsStately HomesZoos and Safari ParksRadio StationsRe-enactment GroupsShops
    BooksClothingEsotericaGiftsJewelleryTours
    Day TripsGhost ToursHolidaysShort BreaksMysterious Britain Store.

    Random Article

    Longleat House
    Longleat House is the home of the Thynne family and

    Add new comment
    You are hereSpirit Of The Greenwood by Barbara Green

    Spirit Of The Greenwood by Barbara Green
    ViewRepeats

    ——————————————————————————–

    Robin Hoods Grave –a modern mystery! Even more terrifying than the Blair Witch Project and a thousand times more intriguing than any Brother Caedfel mystery, SECRETS OF THE GRAVE and it’s sequel SPIRIT OF THE GREENWOOD reveal, for the first time, the true story of the life and death of Robin Hood. Enter the dark, mysterious woods of Kirklees in West Yorkshire, and visit, with writer historian Barbara Green, the forest of Barnsdale where Robin roamed and the ruined priory gatehouse of Kirklees Nunnery where he was treacherously slain by the hand of an evil nun. Written testimonies from those who have experienced the ghostly presence of Robin and his comrades, whose spirits haunt this ancient forest, form the basis of both books, while the life of Robin, as told in SPIRIT OF THE GREENWOOD, accords fully with the Lytell Geste,(Robin’s first biography) printed in the fifteenth century. This, one might think, could be the basis for a best selling book, but such seems to not to be the case, for ,according to the “experts” the public do not want to knw the truth and prefer to be fed the myth of Sherwood Forest and the dastardy deeds of the Sheriff of Nottingham, not to mention Richard the Lionheart, who does not even belong in the story at all!

    The mystery of Robin’s gruesome death at Kirklees, it would seem, is not the only inexplicable phenomenon surrounding the legend ! Why ARE people prevented from learning the true facts about the oulaw’s life, due to the propogation of a fantasy by the media, and why is his famous grave at Kirklees, kept in a state of secrecy and neglect – and who is responsible for this bizarre situation? Dare you ask ? Dare you investigate and…………. dare YOU print the truth ? Or is Robin Hood’s legend to remain distorted out of all recognition, and the real man lost to future generations forever ?

    “No one could see anything in the dense, suffocating blackness, but following Mark’s directions we stumbled on forward through the barrier of writhing, intertwining bushes and trees; then suddenly, we found ourselves in a clearing, where, looming out of the gloom, rearing up before us in the light of our flickering torches, a massive,broken edifice was revealed . A huge ship of stone, wrecked in the everglades of Kirklees, listing crazily into the leaping shadows. We stood transfixed with fear and awe as we gazed upon the fallen pillars and twisted railings which were all that remained of Yorkshire’s buried treasure -Robin Hood’s Grave.”

    “My name is Ozymandias,king of kings:
    Look on my works, ye Mighty and despair!”
    Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
    Of that colossal wreck,boundless and bare
    The lone and level sands stretch far away.”
    SHELLEY

    Robin Hood’s death is recorded in the ballad ROBIN HOOD, HIS DEATH AND BURIAL and briefly in the GESTE. According to the literature Robin is taken ill and decides to go to Kirklees Priory to be nursed by the prioress, who was “nye of his kin” and reputedly skilled in healing. On the way to the nunnery Robin is cursed by a witch – for reasons unknown, as the ballad is unfortunately incomplete. When Robin arrives at the nunnery, Little John, who has accompanied him, is sent away and the prioress proceeds to bleed Robin by opening a vein in his arm – standard medieval medicine, though unlikely to do anyone much good !

    “Shee laid the blood irons to Robin Hood’s vaine
    Alacke the more pitye!
    And perct the vaine, and let out the bloode,
    That full red was to see. At first it bled,the thicke,thicke blood,
    And afterwards the thinne,
    And well then wist good Robin Hoode,
    Treason there was within.”
    DEATH, V 16-17

    2) According to the legend, Robin summons Little John with three blasts of his trusty hunting horn and the giant rushes to his comrade’ s assistance, but alas,he is too late and Robin is already dying. With his last ounce of strength Robin fires his last arrow from the priory gatehouse window, requesting that where it falls he should be buried. Little John is beside himself with rage and grief and threatens to raze the nunnery and all its inhabitants to the ground.

    “A boon,a boon,” cried Little John,
    “Master ,I beg of thee.”
    “What is that boon,”quoth Robin ,
    “Little John,thou begs of me?”
    “It is to burn fair Kirkley Hall,
    “And all their nunnery.”
    “I ne’er hurt fair maid in all my life
    “Nor at my end shall it be;
    “But give me my bent bow in my hand,
    “And my broad arrows I’ll let flee.
    “And where this arrow is taken up,
    “There shall my grave digged be,
    “Lay me a green sod under my head,
    “And another at my feet.
    “And lay my bent bow by my side
    “Which was my music sweet,
    “And make my grave of gravel and green,
    “Which is most right and meet.
    “Let me have length and breadth enough
    “With a green sod under my head:
    “That they may say when I am dead
    “HERE LIES BOLD ROBIN HOOD.”

    The grave, six hundred yards from the gatehouse, was enclosed in iron railings in the nineteenth century. Today it is neglected and overgrown and little known to the general public. It bears the inscription:

    Here underneath dis laitl stean
    Laz robert earl of Huntintun
    Ne’er arcir ver as hie sa geud
    An pipl kauld im robin heud
    Sick utlawz as his as iz men
    Vil england nivr si agen
    THE DEATH OF ROBIN HOOD
    At first it bled the thicke thicke blood
    And afterwards the thinne
    And well then wist good Robin Hood
    Treason there was within

    3) The death of Robin Hood is a well known legend. He was treacherously bled to death by the wicked prioress of Kirklees nunnery, a small Cistercian house near Brighouse, West Yorkshire. The outlaw’s gory and unheroic end is shrouded in mystery. Who was the evil nun and why did she commit so foul a murder? What was the role of Red Roger of Doncaster, who was present at the scene of crime? Was he a priest and also the prioress’s lover? Who WAS the prioress? Was she Dame Elizabeth de Stainton, whose grave can still be seen at Kirklees, or was it Sister Mary Startin, who died of the Black Death in 1350?

    All that is left of this medieval whodunit is a ruined grave, hidden in deep woodland, and the derelict priory gatehouse of Kirklees where Robin was so gruesomely done to death. Was the famous outlaw a vitim of thwarted passion,pagan sacrifice, bad nursing, accident, natural causes or – vampirism ? The entire area where this horrific drama took place is shrouded in ,according to one old book, ” …..a mystery which local people only reluctantly tried to penetrate.The mystery was helped physically by the thick shroud of trees that surrounded the place and was sustained by local tales of prioresses and nuns and of the death of Robin Hood…….”
    THE HAUNTING OF ROBIN HOOD’S GRAVE

    “Terribilis Est Locus Iste” Dreadful is this place – Abbe Berenger Sauniere, Renne-le-Chateau.

    “The Armytage family lived over the brow of the hill on a splendid site once occupied by Cistercian nuns. It was called Kirklees. There was more than an insularity which set the mansion apart. There was a mystery about it which local people only reluctantly tried to penetrate. The mystery was helped physically by the thick shroud of trees that surrounded the place and was sustained by local tales of ghosts of prioresses and nuns and or the death of Robin Hood whose grave is so imperturbably marked as lying within Kirklees grounds in spite of any facts which might suggest to the contrary. ” THE LAND OF LOST CONTENT.

    This would appear to be the first reported mention of ghostly activity around Robin Hood’s Grave, but considering the history of Robin’s death – cursed by a witch on his way to the nunnery, murdered by an apostate nun and cast into an unhallowed grave – it is hardly surprising that the site is reputed to have unquiet spirits hovering around. An elderly lady, Mrs Edith Ellis, witnessed silver arrows in the sky above Kirklees when visiting her old aunt at Hartshead in the early years of the last century. She also reports hearing Robin calling for Marian.

    Another sighting was made by a tenant farmer of Kirklees in 1926. “One day,” he recalls, ” I was sitting on the grave shooting rabbits. As I was about to shoot I felt a tap on my shoulder, and my shotgun went off accidentally, removing two of my front teeth on its recoil. There was nobody to be seen at the time. On another occasion I was on my way home from the Three Nuns. As I was walking through the woods something fell out of a tree and knocked me to the ground. When I got up I could see the old gatehouse. In the window I could clearly see a man with a bow. My family always said it was the drink, but it was Robin Hood’s ghost.”

    In 1963 guitarist Roger Williams took an unofficial stroll up to Robin’s grave with a friend. About twenty yards from the grave he saw a white robed woman who suddenly seemed to glide towards the two men. What made Roger’s hair stand on end was how silently she moved over the twigs and bracken. At about five yards from Roger the woman stopped and stared at him with “dark,mad eyes.” Then she moved away and vanished. It was 2.30 p.m. on a bright,sunny day. Roger Williams saw the same apparition again in 1972, in full daylight, and again she stopped a few yards from him and his companion. This time Roger remembered a few more details. The woman was wearing a long white dress with a square neck and long sleeves which accords with the habit of a Cistercian nun. Again she looked at him angrily before moving off, but the eerie sequel to this experience was that Roger’s house then experienced a series of strange noises and bangings. After this, Roger swore that “wild horses would not drag me up there again.”

    Mark Gibbons, one of the founder members of Gravewatch, had a similar experience
    in 1998. With other members of the group he had gone up to try and find Robin’s grave one moonlit night, but they had got lost. Suddenly Mark saw a white figure pointing in a certain direction – which turned out to be where the grave was situated. Mark also experienced a sensation of great evil and hatred.

    Shortly after this a reporter Judith Broadbent, from the Dewsbury Reporter, and a photographer colleague, Sue Ellis were allowed to visit the gravesite by the owner. While wandering around she heard heavy footsteps behind her and she was pulled to the ground by invisible forces. She shouted “get away” and her friend came rushing to help her. Her camera had jammed while trying to photograph the grave. A week later Sue was taken seriously ill and was paralysed f from the neck downwards for two weeks. The two reporters later wrote this article up for Yorkshire Life magazine, much of its content being taken from Yorkshire Robin Hood Society literature, including the next sighting, which appeared in THE UNEXPLAINED magazine in 1992, prior to the publication of their article.

    This was when vampires entered the arena, introduced to the increasing enigmatic situation by a Bishop of the Holy Grail Church and patron of the Yorkshire Robin Hood Society. In 1992 the Bishop and two colleagues, attempted an exorcism at Kirklees. This had come about as a result of the Yorkshire Robin Hood Society asking for the site to be blessed by the local vicar. Unfortunately permission to perform such a ceremony had been unequivocally refused to both clergymen. The Bishop, however, was made of sterner stuff than the local pastor ! He was renowned for his involvement in the notorious Highgate Vampire affair in the nineteen seventies and it occurred to him that vampires might be behind the legend of Robin being bled to death and this needed urgent spiritual intervention – and he was the man for the job, with or without official sanction ! Suffice to say that on his clandestine visit to the grave the bishop came across the body of a blood drained goat, diabolical rune signs of the priory gatehouse, fingr width holes in the ground round the grave – suggesting vampiric activity – and was confronted by a darkly clad woman who turned into a hag with red staring eyes.

    A further sighting by another nocturnal visitor proved a terrifying experience when she saw two figures hovering in the trees surrounding the grave, who she took to be the evil prioress and her paramour Red Roger of Doncaster. ” I felt, and saw, what I can only describe streams of evil pouring out of the trees towards me” the witness stated. A lady from Nottingham, who visited the grave in the summer of 2000, experienced a psychic communication with Robin at the graveside, as did Robin Hood expert John de Locksley of the London Robin Hood Club, who also boldly battled through the giant ferns, murderous brambles and other lethal obstacles of the Kirklees rain forest to stand by his hero’s grave one wild,wet October night the same year !

    It is true that Robin’s grave was excavated in an amateurish way by a Victorian Armytage (who was reputed to be in his cups at the time) and the ground beneath found to be undisturbed, but the many historical documents naming Kirklees as Robin’s final resting place cannot be ignored. The fact is, his bones could lie anywhere on that hillside, while a gravestone resembling the original one drawn by Dr Johnstone, is to be found in nearby Hartshead churchyard – to where it may have been moved during the Civil War.

    5) Many visitors to the grave have recorded their experiences for posterity, including the following quote from a Victorian tourist :
    “I had the strangest emotions when I first stood over the grave of this old forest hero. I stood there and had no words, nor can I find any now to tell what my feelings were. Bravehearted Robin ! Thou hast found a fit resting place in this glorious park, among these solemn yews and silent trees .”A hundred years later it is a different story:
    “There it was, looming out of the dark, a massive, broken edifice, a huge ship of stone, wrecked in the everglades of Kirklees. Fallen pillars and twisted railings were were all that remained on Yorkshire’s buried treasure. We had found Robin Hood’s Grave.”
    MARK GIBBONS, SECRETS OF THE GRAVE.

    Maybe the last word should be with Victorian poet, George Searle Phillips, a friend of the Brontes, who visited the grave in 1848, and wrote an epic poem, a small section of which is printed below :

    Tread lightly o’er the earth and speak no word
    Till the Great Spirit doth unloose your tongues
    For where those yew trees nod their funereal plumes
    Upon the highest platform of the hill,
    Lies gentle Robin Hood, his mighty heart
    All muffled up in dust and his bright eyes
    Quenched in eternal darkness. Never more
    Shall the woods echo to his bugle horn,
    Or his unerring arrow strike the deer
    Swift flying, till it hits the bloody grass

    Authorship
    greenwych
    Tags EnglandWest YorkshireYorkshireBook ReviewKirkleesReview
    Sun, 04/07/2010 – 18:58 #21 .greenwych
    Online Joined: 5 Jul 2009 .Re: Spirit Of The Greenwood by Barbara Green
    Thank you David

    This is how the book starts–I was given the rest of the script to edit

    THE HIGHGATE VAMPIRE AND ME

    WRITTEN BY CATHERINE FEARNLEY

    AN INTRIGUING ACCOUNT OF HOW AN

    INNOCENT YOUNG WOMAN BECAME INVOLVED

    WITH TWO WELL KNOWN VAMPIRE HUNTER

    RIVALS FROM LONDON

    I won’t put any more on for fear of howls of “copyright theft”. All I will say is that Catherine told me she sent it to Manchester for his approval–I strongly advised her not to do so as I knew exactly what he would say, despite it actually turning in his favour mid-point!!! Is he actually saying he never got the script? Mr Anonymous if you could reply yeh or nay–if so then eithr he or Catherine is telling fibs, I have no reason to make a story up, I dont care one way or the other.

    The next thing I knew is that Catherine told me Manchester had “forbidden” her to publish–which I thought utterly weird to say the least—I told her to ignore him but into the bin went the book(though it was still on my computer!)

    Then there was the brouhaha with the preist and at the same time my trying to sort family affairs out—-well,you know the rest–its in your booky wooky, Pact with the Devil,

    tata greenwych
    .Top ..Sun, 04/07/2010 – 20:06 #22 .DavidFarrant
    Offline Joined: 6 Mar 2010 .Re: Spirit Of The Greenwood by Barbara Green
    ‘INNOCENT’, Barbara??!!

    Yes, so was Judas Iscariot!

    David
    .Top ..Mon, 05/07/2010 – 09:33 #23 .Vampire Researc…
    Offline Joined: 8 Jun 2010 .Re: Spirit Of The Greenwood by Barbara Green
    “More importantly, Barbara, people will have perhaps noticed that the ‘anonymous’ person talking ABOUT ‘bishop’ Manchester (he knows nothing about all this, etc, etc) has direct access to his private correspondence.”

    You openly admit on your own blog that spelling and grammar are not your strong point. Perhaps you should add to that list “reading” because this is what I posted on this thread yesterday:

    “The Facebook PM exchange between you and Bishop Manchester has now been put in the public domain by the bishop, which is why I am able to reproduce it.” (04/07/2010 – 11:50)

    Barbara Green took the decision to immediately share Bishop Manchester’s PRIVATE messages to her via Facebook with you. This resulted in them being instantly distorted, which is why he took the decision to put them in the public domain. Hence, anyone can read them if they can access the bishop’s group discussion forum where they were uploaded.

    “Is he actually saying he never got the script? Mr Anonymous if you could reply yeh or nay.” – Barbara Green

    “Luci” is anonymous, as are most people who post on internet forums; so why address me as “Anonymous”? Why not “Vampire Researcher” like others on this forum?

    You appear to be suffereing from the same problem as your associate, ie you have difficulty reading things properly. Either that or you cannot absorb the meaning of what is written where it conflicts with your distorted preconception. This is what Bishop Manchester wrote to you on 27 June 2010 in a private message:

    “Yesterday evening you repeated the absurd notion that this female sent me a manuscript of some sort and that I ‘had a dickipoggy.’ I must tell you that I received no such manuscript and would not want to receive anything concerning your friend in Muswell Hill.”

    It is quite clear that he did not receive the manuscript allegedly written by Farrant’s ex-girlfriend Catherine Fearnley, and, more important, that he would not want to receive something of that sort. Then, a few days later, you are asking whether the bishop got the manuscript?!! Is it any wonder you get everything wrong when you can’t even remember something you were told a week earlier?

    The fact that you refuse to deal directly with Bishop Manchester unless it is to send him abuse, and only want to publish lies and innuendo about him behind his back, is obviously why he blocked you on Facebook soon after he sent his last private message to you.

    You claim that you “deleted and banned” him. You were not an approved friend of his on Facebook so could not “delete” him. There is no banning procedure open to FB members, only blocking which is what Bishop Manchester has done to you.
    .Top ..Mon, 05/07/2010 – 13:41 #24 .DavidFarrant
    Offline Joined: 6 Mar 2010 .Re: Spirit Of The Greenwood by Barbara Green
    “The fact that you refuse to deal directly with Bishop Manchester unless it is to send him abuse, and only want to publish lies and innuendo about him behind his back, is obviously why he blocked you on Facebook soon after he sent his last private message to you.”

    You DID get the manuscript that was sent to you by the irrate female, ‘anonymous’, and you previously admitted this on ‘The Cat’s Miaow’ which has been safely copied. At first you kept adamently denying this and that there had been ‘absolutly’ no contact between this person and the ‘bishop’, except when the person contacted him to ‘apolise to him’. When I accused you of deliberately lying, under pressure, you admitted that a member of the ‘vampire research society’ had apparently received the manuscript but had not read it and, realising who it was about, had immediately ‘thrown it in the bin’.

    Liars need good memories, ‘anonymous’. The irrate person told Barbara Green (who was helping her to edit this manuscript) both before, and after, she had sent this proposed book. This manuscript was all about myself (and yourself in fact!) and titled “The Hiighgate Vampire and me”.

    You personally emailed this person, ‘anonymous’ and ‘strongly asvised her’ not to attempt to publish it.

    This manuscript was later sent to me in its entirity, and I have already published its introduction on another Forum to prove that it existed.

    The person concerned was emailing a journalist at the time and telling this woman how she had been in direct contact with yourself and how you, (‘anonymous’)had advised her not to publish it. The journalist (called J) sent me all of these emails last year with permission to name her (the journalist) and to publish them.

    I may well yet still do so when I release a second edition of my recent book “Pact with the Devil”. The first one seems to have been very popular.

    You are a liar, ‘anonymous’, and so is the ‘Yorkshire lassie’ who you were in contact with.

    David Farrant, President, BPOS
    .Top ..Mon, 05/07/2010 – 14:04 #25 .greenwych
    Online Joined: 5 Jul 2009 .Re: Spirit Of The Greenwood by Barbara Green
    It is true that I do find Manchesters complicated goings on tiresome to follow or to even bother wasting much time ontrying to decyphering his latest nonsence .As for my typing, well sometimes I am in a hurry. Keep it simple. The simplest explanation is usually the true one.Not these convuluted confabulations of the bishop in which he is always the hero and everyone else the villan.
    As for the workings of facebook and what not, its not something I do much of either. Arguing the toss with Mnachester is basically a lost cause–he would swear black was white and swear it to be the truth. I really dont care in the least about Catherine’s book, as she wrote in while she was “in-between” vampire hunters it doesnt really have much to say, its all rather rambling to say the least and with a large chunk of Robin Hood thrown in, which is likely to baffle readers. However, what I say still is the case whether you liketh it or not, this is what she told me, that she had sent it to the bishop and “The Bishop says NO”-no no “–why she should require his permission to speak or print or even his approval was completely irrelevant I would have thought, but she went ahead. Why he didn’t like it, or threw it into a bin unread—for which one of his assistants would have been heavily censured if they had taken it on theselves to do such a thing—again, it sounds a load of old hogwash.

    Maybe she didn’t send it–maybe she just told me she did and blamed the bishop, but why then hasnt she published it herself?

    As usual the bishop has to make a great big to do about it and call everyone liars. Well why should I report such a thing–its nothing to me at all, it was just mentioned in passing, yet he has to go off on a dickipoggy and rant and rave at me and accuse me of stupid stuff once again. He did go onto my facebook univited to throw insults at me, for everyone to see, including David, so whats he making a fuss over that for? No wonder I deleted him and blocked him, I dont want his tea pot cosy on my site.

    greenwych
    .Top ..Mon, 05/07/2010 – 15:50 #26 .Vampire Researc…
    Offline Joined: 8 Jun 2010 .Re: Spirit Of The Greenwood by Barbara Green
    “You DID get the manuscript that was sent to you by the irrate female, ‘anonymous’, and you previously admitted this on ‘The Cat’s Miaow’ which has been safely copied.”

    Demonologist is no more Bishop Manchester than am I. Once again, you are lying. Provide a link to the page and identify the date and time of the post where Demonologist “admitted” that the bishop had received the manuscript from Catherine Fearnley.

    Link for “The Cat’s Miaow”: http://baldrycat.blogspot.com

    You will be unable to find any such “admission.” It exists only in your confused and troubled brain. The fact is that Bishop Manchester was not sent the manuscript, did not receive the manuscript and has not read the manuscript.

    “Liars need good memories.”

    Indeed, they do. How many times did you say you had witnessed the Highgate entity? One, two or three times?

    http://highgatevampire.blogspot.com

    “The irrate person told Barbara Green (who was helping her to edit this manuscript) both before, and after, she had sent this proposed book.”

    Evidence! Where is the evidence? Anyone can say anything. Especially when, like you, they are compulsive liars. This is what Andy Pryce said after meeting you:

    “I have spent most of my life studying accounts of vampirism, and have indeed visited Highgate Cemetery on numerous occasions. How it has changed over the years! I am interested in research into any accounts of actual vampirism, from the writings of Dom Augustine Calmet through to modern day accounts. I have a copy of The Highgate Vampire [by Seán Manchester] which I found very interesting. I remember the events at the time they happened and the various newspaper reports. It was then that I first came across the name ‘David Farrant.’ I met him once in a pub near Highgate and found him to be a compulsive liar and there was something shifty about his mannerism. I have since warned many people to stay clear of him.” ~ Andy Pryce, Paranormal Researcher, Birmingham, United Kingdom

    “You personally emailed this person, and ‘strongly asvised her’ not to attempt to publish it.”

    I take it you are talking about Bishop Manchester and not me? If that is the case, reproduce this non-existent email with html, headers and footers. Stop talking the talk and start walking the walk!

    “You are a liar, and so is the ‘Yorkshire lassie’ who you were in contact with”

    I take it you are still talking about Bishop Manchester and not me? The bishop has stated that, apart from her apologising for effectively doing your dirty work regarding your hate campaign against him, and a couple of Christian greetings, he had no further communication with this person.

    “He did go onto my facebook univited to throw insults at me” – Barbara Green

    What are you talking about? He did not go onto your Facebook. If he did everyone would be able to see his comments. All he did was send you a private message via Facebook to put the record straight regarding the manuscript he did not receive and one or two other things. This was a private communication which you chose to betray by sharing it with your “partner in crime” Farrant.

    “The simplest explanation is usually the true one.” – Barbara Green

    Who exactly has been obsessing about these matters year in and year out? Who self-publishes pamphlets filled with hateful abuse and stolen photographs with libellous attributions? Who repeats over and over again fabricated nonsense, poisonous innuendo and obvious misconceptions?

    The simplest explanation is that you and Farrant are birds of a feather who are twisted and delight in spreading malicious gossip because you have nothing better to do.
    .Top ..Mon, 05/07/2010 – 16:48 #27 .greenwych
    Online Joined: 5 Jul 2009 .Re: Spirit Of The Greenwood by Barbara Green
    Quote, unquote:

    ” Who exactly has been obsessing about these matters year in and year out? Who self-publishes pamphlets filled with hateful abuse and stolen photographs with libellous attributions? Who repeats over and over again fabricated nonsense, poisonous innuendo and obvious misconceptions?”

    One person only,need I name names?

    And you, writer of this trash on supposedly someone elses behalf and if so has nothing to do with the matter –yet another anoymous mouthpiece,need actually look no further than the mirror!

    greenwych
    .Top ..Tue, 06/07/2010 – 10:22 #28 .Vampire Researc…
    Offline Joined: 8 Jun 2010 .Re: Spirit Of The Greenwood by Barbara Green
    Quote, unquote:

    “Who exactly has been obsessing about these matters year in and year out? Who self-publishes pamphlets filled with hateful abuse and stolen photographs with libellous attributions? Who repeats over and over again fabricated nonsense, poisonous innuendo and obvious misconceptions?”

    One person and one person only: David Farrant.

    Examine Farrant’s list of self-published tracts, pamphlets and booklets. Ninety-nine percent of them are devoted to attacking Bishop Manchester, his family, friends and colleagues. Look at Farrant’s latest pamphlet. What is it about? Who is it attacking? Have the photographs of the bishop been infringed and used illegally? Of course they have!

    To recap:

    Thirteen or so years ago you became an associate and supporter of Farrant, a man imprisoned in the 1970s for desecration and vandalism at Highgate Cemetery, and this was the reason why Bishop Seán Manchester would have nothing more to do with you. The situation was compounded by production of your self-published Secrets of the Grave booklet where abusive material about the bishop appears. You published grotesque cartoons of Bishop Seán Manchester which you commissioned from Christine Demant. A privately taken photograph of Bishop Manchester in Highgate Cemetery was supplied by Robert Brautigam who, due to his Crowleyite leanings, was now colluding with Farrant. The caption beneath this picture was intended to give offence to the bishop.

    Why would you include in your booklet a picture of Bishop Seán Manchester when you did not include pictures of people you considered far more important at that time? No pictures of John Pope de Locksley or Robert Brautigam are in evidence; nor their mutual friend Farrant who became the “patron” of your Yorkshire-based Robin Hood Society in February 2004. So why was Bishop Seán Manchester singled out as being more deserving of illustrative material?

    You have met Bishop Seán Manchester only twice. These accidental meetings took place at the same charity venue in South Hertfordshire on each occasion where Bishop Manchester and his wife were invited guests. The first time you met the couple was in May 1987 and second and last time was in May 1988. Bishop Seán Manchester agreed to lend his name to charity raising ideas you put forward in connection with your Yorkshire Robin Hood Society. You used his name on your letter-headed notepaper to this end, but when it became apparent that no funds raised by you were being donated to any charitable institution, he started to distance himself from your “history society” whose membership dwindled and disappeared during the same period. None of your original members (who had all left by the time you had become a Quisling) ever returned.

    The draft of your booklet Secrets of the Grave was produced in 1998, a copy of which you forwarded to Bishop Manchester in May of that year. Bishop Seán Manchester found himself ridiculed, misrepresented and parodied within its pages. Not surprisingly, he made his displeasure known to you. He also noticed that you included Farrant’s name in the “acknowledgements” even though Farrant had contributed nothing to your booklet and was not even vaguely interested in YRHS activities beyond the fact that his archnemesis was somehow involved.

    From that point Bishop Seán Manchester dissociated himself entirely from you and your activities. Your booklet, when it was finally printed, contained grotesque cartoons intended to give offence to the bishop, plus sarcastic remarks aimed at ridiculing him. This is how you rewarded someone whose only mistake was to try and lend help to a cause by allowing the use of his name.

  31. greenwych says:

    Re: Spirit Of The Greenwood by Barbara Green
    Hi could you start again with your accusations as something seems to have gone dickipoggy

    thanks

    greenwych

  32. greenwych says:

    Re: Spirit Of The Greenwood by Barbara Green
    Thirteen or so years ago you became an associate and supporter of Farrant,

    NO DEAR OLD CHAP I SIMPLY CONTACTED DAVID OVER A PERSONAL MATTER AND AFTERWARDS TO ASK HIM HIS POINT OF VIEW RE THE BISHOPS ACCUSATIONS–SURELY THIS IS BRITISH JUSTICE TO HEAR BOTH SIDES OF A STORY, NOT JUST ONE!!!!!!!!!!!

    a man imprisoned in the 1970s for desecration and vandalism at Highgate Cemetery, and this was the reason why Bishop Seán Manchester would have nothing more to do with you. The situation was compounded by production of your self-published Secrets of the Grave booklet where abusive material about the bishop appears. You published grotesque cartoons of Bishop Seán Manchester which you commissioned from Christine Demant.

    NO I DID NOT COMMISSION GROTESQUE CARTOONS OF THE BISHOP
    I ASKED CHRISS IE TO ILLUSTRATE MY BOOK SECRETS OF THE GRAVE–IF SHE DECIDED TO DO IT THAT WAY IT WAS HER DECISON NOT MINE–AS THE BISHOP WAS HAVING A GO AT ME FOR STUPID NONSENCE THAT IS WRITING EXACTLY WAHT HE SAID ABOUT HIMSELF OR WHAT HIS WIFE SAID THEN HE SAID IT WA DEFAMATORY—-YES OKAY I LET THE PICTURES BE INCLUDED BE PLEASE UNDERSTAND I DID NOT COMMISION THEM, CAN YOU GET THAT THROUGH YOUR THICK SKULL?

    A privately taken photograph of Bishop Manchester in Highgate Cemetery was supplied by Robert Brautigam who, due to his Crowleyite leanings, was now colluding with Farrant. The caption beneath this picture was intended to give offence to the bishop.

    IT QHOTES WHAT HE SAYS ABOUT HIMSLEF AND OTHER ADMIRERS INCLUDING URI GELLES DESCRIPTION OF HIM ON HIS WEBSITE

    Why would you include in your booklet a picture of Bishop Seán Manchester when you did not include pictures of people you considered far more important at that time?

    WHO SAYS I REGARDED ANYONE AS “MORE IMPORTANT” THAN HIS BISHOPNESS?

    No pictures of John Pope de Locksley or Robert Brautigam are in evidence; nor their mutual friend Farrant who became the “patron” of your Yorkshire-based Robin Hood Society in February 2004. So why was Bishop Seán Manchester singled out as being more deserving of illustrative material?

    YOU CANT INCLUDE EVERYONE!!!!!!!!! HE IS SUCH A HANDSOME FAMOUS PERSON–ACCORDING TO HIS OWN DESCRIPTIONS— I COULD NOT POSSIBLY LEAVE HIM OUT OR I WOULD HAVE BEEN ACCUSED OR EVEN GREATER SINS!

    You have met Bishop Seán Manchester only twice. These accidental meetings took place at the same charity venue in South Hertfordshire on each occasion where Bishop Manchester and his wife were invited guests. The first time you met the couple was in May 1987 and second and last time was in May 1988. Bishop Seán Manchester agreed OFFERED!!!!!!!!! to lend his name to charity raising ideas you put forward in connection with your Yorkshire Robin Hood Society. You used his name on your letter-headed notepaper to this end, but when it became apparent that no funds raised by you were being donated to any charitable institution,

    WE WERE NEVER A CHARITY OR TRIED TO RAISE FUNDS BUT THE MANCHESTER MEMORIAL FUND HE SET UP DID, WHICH WAS NOT A REGISTERED CHARITY.

    he started to distance himself from your “history society” whose membership dwindled and disappeared during the same period. None of your original members (who had all left by the time you had become a Quisling) ever returned.

    WHAT EVIDENCE HAVE YOU OF THIS ASSUMPTION WHICH IS NONSENCE ANYWAY?

    The draft of your booklet Secrets of the Grave was produced in 1998, a copy of which you forwarded to Bishop Manchester in May of that year. Bishop Seán Manchester found himself ridiculed, misrepresented and parodied within its pages.

    THE STUFF ABOUT BM WAS WHAT EH OR HIS WIFE HAD WRITTEN ABOUT HIMSELF

    Not surprisingly, he made his displeasure known to you. He also noticed that you included Farrant’s name in the “acknowledgements” even though Farrant had contributed nothing to your booklet

    HOW DO YOU KNOW?????

    and was not even vaguely interested in YRHS activities beyond the fact that his archnemesis was somehow involved.

    From that point Bishop Seán Manchester dissociated himself entirely from you and your activities. Your booklet, when it was finally printed, contained grotesque cartoons intended to give offence to the bishop, plus sarcastic remarks aimed at ridiculing him. This is how you rewarded someone whose only mistake was to try and lend help to a cause by allowing the use of his name.

    WELL HE NEED TO SUE HIMSLEF THEN AS IT WAS ALL HIS STUFF

    FAREWELL, AND FARE THEE WELL

    GREENWYCH

  33. greenwych says:

    Re: Spirit Of The Greenwood by Barbara Green
    ps

    As you say youa re not the bishop himself and only an outside wellwisher and supporter, therefore can know nothing of the matter, or what correspondnace passed between the bishop and myself over the years—if you knew about it then you would soon find out that you are talking rot. But you said he knows nothing about your posts anyway so cant correct you.

    For example I never commissioned Chrissie Deamnt for anything, I asked her if she woudl like to illustrate Secrets of the Grave and to be honest expected a more variety of subjects. It was nevr a COMMISSION. If you have a problem with what she illustrated then dont blame me, I did not ask her to do funnied of the bishop, that was her deceision though you might well wonder why she felt inspired the draw what she did!!! Perhaps the bishop had upset her also with his wild
    accusations!

    greenwych

  34. Vampire Research Society says:

    Re: Spirit Of The Greenwood by Barbara Green
    For the record, I am not an “outsider” etc. I am an executive member of the Vampire Research Society whose founding president is Bishop Seán Manchester.

    How do I know that Farrant is “acknowledged” in your booklet Secrets of the Grave? Because I’ve seen a copy!

    Christine Demant might have created and supplied grotesque cartoons of Bishop Manchester, but it was YOUR decision to publish and distribute them. Nobody forced you to do so. It obviously fitted in with the direction you had taken after making contact with Farrant and becoming contaminated by his hate campaign against the bishop. Anyone can privately draw cartoons of a hurtful and blasphemous nature. The problem arises when someone publishes and circulates them. Since you and you alone self-published Secrets of the Grave that person is you.

    Why can’t you just accept that you and Bishop Manchester cannot see eye to eye due to the Farrant issue and agree to disagree? Why do you feel compelled to abuse him on a regular basis on forums wherever the opportunity arises?

  35. greenwych says:

    Re: Spirit Of The Greenwood by Barbara Green
    So what–why can’t I acknowledge people without Manchester’s royal permission? Also your definition of abuse is anyone who happens to disagree or question Bishop Manchester’s version of events. We are supposed to have free speech in this country, we are not in a dictatorship, let me remind you.Why do you try to brainwash people to one point of view only? Bishop Manchester has been unpardonably rude to me for many years now, for no reason at all, other than not agreeing with him ,yet he takes no personal responsibility for all the hurtful and untrue things he has said about me and others. Then he gets you guys to fight he battles, or hides behind silly names. He seems to think he can say whatever nastiness and accuse people of all manner of nonsence without the person involved making any response other than to agree with him!!!,–some bishop!— and yet doesnt like it when people do not automatically agree with his booming pronouncements or seek to correct his biased , egotistic ideas and and comminations.

    The “Farrant” issue distorts any rational thoughts of the Bishops, he cannot think straight for seeing everything through the focus of David, it blinds him to rational thought and he just lashes out. Anyhow why am I wasting my time trying to reason with you guys, you are prejudiced, narrow minded and–if you exist at all–in some kind of bemused thrall to Manchester, goodness me!

    I am not and never have been controlled or influenced by David–and he has never attempted to influence me—I don’t need anyone to dictate my mind thank you–I make my own decisions after doing my research–RESEARCH–that means looking at situations from all angles, not from one entrenched point of view! To abuse people who seek to find out more as you do, instead of believing every word that comes from Manchesters lips, is not a crime and does not make someone to be automatically running a “hate campaign”–how silly–more a “truth” campaign. Whats he afraid of I wonder! His massive overreaction to any form of questioning or, perish the thought, critisism, of his word makes his version of events even more suspicious and open to question,

    greenwych

    greenwych

  36. LUCI says:

    Re: Spirit Of The Greenwood by Barbara Green
    .Barbara,tried to find you on facebook.Wasnt very successfull Dont know what im doing wrong.There were a lot of barbara Greens.need a bit of help.Iam interested about all that Robin Hood stuff,not least,all the carryings on with the Kirklees thing.Isee that you have got Tea Cosy on your back too?Does this person get everywhere?Cant imagine why he doesnt justgo?

  37. greenwych says:

    Re: Spirit Of The Greenwood by Barbara Green
    Hi Luci–indeed I have got tea cosy on my case( and am sorry if you have also, or is that claremond?) and have for many years ever since I mentioned David in my book Secrets of the Grave which seemed to unhinge him completely. Also beause I wrote what Manchester and his wife said about himself based on two articles–Our Patron Lord Manchester and the Kirklees Vampire–I am accused of “defaming him”–well he must have defamed himself if that is the case! As for the pictures, after his abominable rudeness and derangaed reaction over David’s name, I saw no reason not to use Chrissie’s drawings, otherwise I would have been in an awkward position–Chrissie would have been very annoyed with me after she had spent such a lot of tiem doing the illustrations for me to say I couldnt use them–they were brilliant also, but I do repeat I never asked or expected her to draw the bishop–I think there were 3, I could of expected one and not cartooning him–which she did, but he must have annoyed her big time also for her to do him like that anyway–why doesnt he ask himself that?People don’t do these things for no reason–I seem to remember him haveing a go at Chrissie and her hubby also some years ago, they got off the scene shortly afterwards–very wise!
    Since then He has accused me of just about every crime in his book , but to mention David is anathema–I have been called “disloyal”, and a Satanic worshipper, and a mindless ninny with no mind of my own except to do David’s bidding, etc etc etc—all because I mentioned David without saying something nasty about him–why should I–all the nastiness I KNEW came from Manchesters carpet bombing campaign of leaflets about David sent to to me by MM , and I suppose I was expected to join in his anti-David campaign purely on M’S word when I knew nothing about David at all, and even now , apart from the attacks, I am not really in his “gang” . But I am not going to be told who I can or can not write or speak to by some fella, just cos he quarreled with that person in the year dot. Anyhow—–when Nexttime I come back on here I will put you a link to my facebook, though its a bit of a muddle, full of my grandaughters farm animals and whatnot!

    tata greenwych

  38. Vampire Research Society says:

    Re: Spirit Of The Greenwood by Barbara Green
    You are free to make whatever choices you like, Barbara Green. The issue is one of “loyalty.” Not choice. Also, your booklet, which is in the VRS archive, is intended to give offence. Disloyal and offensive. And now you call holding an opinion different to your own as attempting to “brainwash” you? Do you know how absurd that sounds?

    Once you had changed direction you should at least have had the courtesy not to mention Bishop Manchester any further in your self-published material and on the internet. By all means mention Farrant to your heart’s content. But why the bishop? He had only given you help when you tried to raise money for charities at various events. (I did not say YOU were a charity, or that the YRHS is a charity. And the MMF leaflet resurrected by you on this thread is a forgery, as you well know).

    The evidence of you being influenced by Farrant is present in almost everything you post on the internet. You have totally adopted his jaundiced and distorted propaganda against the bishop. You make the same accusations. You employ the same language. You adopt the same unsubstatiated allegation technique. You have made quite a number of accusations in your last post, but always without any evidence to support it. This renders your case valueless. Farrant does exactly the same thing!

    You are now arguing that because you feared the artist (Christine Demant) would be “very annoyed” with you if you didn’t publish and distribute grotesque cartoons of Bishop Manchester this made you feel obliged to invest in their reproduction. Never mind they were vile parodies of Bishop Manchester that were intended to ridicule him and cause him offence. Your logic is crazy. That’s like me saying that if someone sends me a lot of libellous material about you, having gone to the trouble of typing it out, I should publish it because they would be annoyed if I didn’t; which, of course, is totally illogical.

    Bishop Manchester has done nothing to annoy Christine Demant and I invite you to ask her whether he has or not. She and her husband, like you, decided to change direction. They are political anarchists and found the bishop’s old-fashioned ways and religious traditionalism at odds with their thinking. They thought they had found in Farrant an anti-establishment figure because of his criminal record and outrageous claims, but quickly went off him after a while and nowadays want nothing to do with him. They are probably satisfied he is a complete fraud.

    In your previous post you claim: “Since then He has accused me of just about every crime in his book.” He has questioned your loyalty and ceased to allow himself be associated with you for that reason. Where is the crime in that? Where are the accusations he has made against you? Can’t you see you are playing Farrant’s game and reacting exactly as Farrant reacts? Once again, you offer absolutely NO evidence to support this preposterous claim.

    You cannot accuse the bishop of “introducing” you to Farrant any more than someone who has written a book which mentions Ian Brady in it is responsible for introducing you to Ian Brady. You were already acquainted with Farrant’s lieutenant John Pope de Locksley BEFORE you ever met Bishop Manchester and his wife. When you learned more about that situation in a book you probably asked for more information.

    The fact is that certain individuals are intrinsically evil and a great number of people count Farrant among that number. You are obviously free to befriend and support him as much as you like, but when you join him in his vendetta against Bishop Manchester you enter unacceptable territory and must bear the consequences of your actions. All you ever needed to do was forget about the bishop and not mention him in your compulsive torrents which repeat the same libellous tirades from one year to the next, over and over again. If you want to avoid repurcussions from those who are sympathetic to the bishop the best way to do that is stop your constant personal attacks against him.

    You have thirteen friends on Facebook, Farrant being the thirteenth person to be invited as a friend by you. Bishop Manchester has almost four thousand friends on Facebook. Some will obviously take unkindly to your endless rants against the bishop on the internet. Or does your friendship and support for Farrant automatically oblige you to constantly attack Bishop Manchester every day of the week?

    Farrant posted the following to you on his own Facebook wall a week ago:

    “Well, there are just some human beings its not possible to forgive, Barbara. You can’t really forgive evil, only pray for it – if your’re a Christian of course. But even the Devil incarnate can not escape the Final Judgement. So do not worry in the ‘long-term’!” – David Farrant (June 29 at 9:01pm)

    As any psychologist familiar with the saga will instantly recognise, Farrant, whether he realises it or not, is talking about himself. He might not be the Devil incarnate, despite what many people say to the contrary, but he is most definitely the Devil’s fool and, like the rest of us, cannot escape the Final Judgement, which I suspect will send him in a direction pointing downwards; lest, of course, he begs forgiveness from all his many victims and shows genuine remorse for the remainder of his days.

  39. LUCI says:

    Re: Spirit Of The Greenwood by Barbara Green
    For BARBARA.Well,after that telling off,i see exactly what you mean.The man they call Tea Cosy seems a complete nutcase.I am not going to comment on my identity,suffice to say that i think Clarmonde was treated very unfairly.She did not deserve to be kicked off Arcadia,when so many other people say much worse.But she hit a nerve,obviuosly.Its quite obvious from what he says,that hes an idiot.What concerns me is that he seems to have this obvious ability to sway other people.?The country seems full of these idiots.People likeDavid seem in the minority.How i hate all these bloody idiots like Tea Cosy.Just because we dont believe what they do.He really does remind me of that character,witchfinder general ?Who we all know was a completely sick individual,in the film.

  40. greenwych says:

    Re: Spirit Of The Greenwood by Barbara Green
    Well for starters the bishop published on Arcadia that I was sacked from my job which is entirely untrue and can be proven to be a lie in any court of law by simply checking by records with the NHS, HE REFUSED TO NAME HIS SOURCES with some vague waffle about “its all over the Internet”–which I could never find anyway, obvioulsy as its untrue, and he never apologised. Why should he, or his “front window” of the moment, write such a thing? Simple malice, and no apology for the mistake, which even if it had been true, there was no need toplaster it all over a public message board–for what reason other than pure malice. Whay relevence would it had havd to Robin Hood? The rest of the waffle is just that—Manchester bombarded me and many other with anti Farrant literature for many years, seeking to suck us into his personal feud.

    Clearly Mr M does not understand the concept of CAUSE AND EFFECT.Why do so many people–barring the famous four thousand–find him preposterous and immature and it impossible to believe his lurid vampire hunting yarns–when has he ever produced hard and fast evidence for the hundreds of vampires he has claimed to despatch(I believe that is the word) He was a miserable failure at Kirklees—he states he went there for a vigil–what was the vigil supposed to do–if people wwere desperate surely he went to rescue them, not just stand by a tree for 3 hours with a candle in his hand? He tired to fudge the issue of trespass and lambast other people for trespassing when in fact he did just the same. What logic can twist that paradox into virtue —none, but he has a jolly good try. He trespassed, just like the rest of us, but was too busy trying to get on Lady A’s social list, to admit it was a trepass, it was some kind of emergency rescue from vampires mission, which, at the end of the day, he failed to do!According to his articles, as published in my book, which is now, by the same dickipoggy logic, in that book to defame him, when I simply wrote the facts as described by himself!!! Barmy or what!!!!

    Nothing he says stands up to scrutiny and that is what he actually hates,people asking awkward questions and querying his version of events, he never answers a single question that demands evidence other than his infllaibile “word”.If you doubt that you are “disloyal” a “satanist” and a helpless “minion of farrant.” !!

    AS for his four thousand followers, well Hitler had many thousands of followers also, they were called the Gestapo and Nazis and look where it got him! David Koresh had a load of followers and so did Jim Jones, not to mention the Rev Moon! I didnt know how many people were on my fb, I hardly look into it,thanks for counting up for me, nosey parker, but am far too busy doing sensible , useful things to be spending time corresponding with such mass followings. Though his army of anonymous supporters will probabaly do all the legwork! haha ! Jolly good for him, I could say I have half a million followers if I felt like it.Its quality not quantity, dear fella.

    Farewell for now, take a pill, have a laugh
    greenwych

    Fiddle de dee, chill out man

  41. greenwych says:

    Re: Spirit Of The Greenwood by Barbara Green
    Luci–many thanks, take care from the Big Bad Tea Cosy–you enter it at your own persil.

    Just one more thing the YRHS WAS NEVER A CHARITY, it never put in for charity status, it never took any money for charity. On the otehr hand I got sent a leaflet, with pictures photocopied from a St Winefrides well artist,without he permission need I say to represent the Manchester Mmemorial Fund to Save Robin’s Grave, and where to send the cheques–to his box no in London.At the time.

    There was no question that it was a forgery, I ahd it–and still have it–from Manchester direct.

    I wonder if his “CHurch” has tried to be r egistered as a charity and retreat centre–probably not as that would be pushing his luck. None of the church authorities, tourist info in his area or the retreat website, have ever heard of hsi church or retreat centre, let alone the times of any church services or what sacraments he administers, or sermons he preaches.

    If its a private house fair enough, which I suppose its all it is. I could call my house the Church of the Holy Ham Sandwich if I felt so inclined, and set myself up as its Lady Bishop, Head of State and Grand Inquisitor!

    Greenwych

  42. Vampire Research Society says:

    Re: Spirit Of The Greenwood by Barbara Green
    It has not been claimed by anyone that you were a charity. You nevertheless did ask for donations and attended events where you made collections from the public. Bishop Manchester was told by you that this money would be given to unspecified charities.

    The “memorial fund” leaflet you keep referring to was NOT given to you by the bishop. It was a pathetic forgery aimed at causing trouble for Bishop Manchester by the man who actually gave you a copy of it.

    You appear rather ignorant about churches registering as charities. They can’t register as such. The bishop has a private retreat which is for his own private use. Those invited are his friends, clergy and members of his Order.

    Why would his sacerdotal ministry interest you? You are not even of his denomination! You have shown him disloyalty and he wants nothing to do with you; especially as you regularly personally attack him on the internet.

    His private retreat has absolutely nothing to with his Church in the sense that you imply, and his ecclesial standing and episcopal ministry is none of your business.

    You clearly regard yourself as the bishop’s enemy. Anything that concerns him does not concern you. You belong elsewhere. You have made your bed and must lie in it.

  43. DavidFarrant says:

    Re: Spirit Of The Greenwood by Barbara Green
    Would you perhaps telling us ‘anonymous’ why you applied for an excemtion from paying Council Tax, in effect costing the tax payer thousands of pounds over the years?

    David Farrant, Patron YRHS

  44. greenwych says:

    Re: Spirit Of The Greenwood by Barbara Green
    No one asked for donations, that is an outright lie, we were selling books and postacrds, just like you sell your books.That covers costs for our “flmisy self published pamphlets”–no donations were asked for or taken, another load of codswallop. Whats the matter with the guy to keep ranting on like this, he sure must have something to hide! The Manchester Memorial Fund was sent to me in photocopied form by the bishop himself, no -one else.The donations were to go to his box no address. Your information is incorrect,that someone else gave it to me–who exactly. I have still got it–want to see it?Anyone who thinks for him or herself and does not take their cue from the bishop is then hysterically called “disloyal”—you talk nonsence with every word you utter. What about your lies or the other shop fronts lies about my job–another of the 40000 “supporters” who chip in with their detailed knowledge of all the so called grievances of the bishops?

    Its all stuff and nonsence.

    greenwych

    ps Does the Bishop now admit he trespassed at Kirklees and in the Highgate tombs for that matter?

  45. LUCI says:

    Re: Spirit Of The Greenwood by Barbara Green
    For Barbara,The fact is that i am not afraid of this loony individual.ALLi did was start having a conversation with David,then i got bombarded with lots of rude and defamatory material all about David.Before i really got to know him,this bloke,tea cosy,jumped in first,sending me several personal messages that i didnt want.As far as im concerned i think the mans an idiot.The only reason he thinks hes a bishop ,is because when he starts ranting,people cover their ears and shout”Jesus”!

  46. greenwych says:

    Re: Spirit Of The Greenwood by Barbara Green
    Why on earth should anyone “hate” the bishop–he is such a lovely man, so polite, pleasant,understanding , humble and humourous and with a true spirit of charity and peace–as evidenced by his writings–though, as has been pointed out to me, he is in entire ignorance of what misreprenatations of his good self which a re being written in his name by the VRS, OTHER SHOP FRONTS, HIS 40,000 fans on facebook and for which he bears absolutely no responsibility. Just to agree with Luci, I was also bombarded with anti David literature in the past, by post–before computerdom—I did not know anything about him, when I contacted him myself to be fair all round and not believe everything I am told by one person–I was accused of being “disloyal” and also a Satanist!!!!

    Othr rubbish followed, including getting sacked from my job–untrue—and this that and the other in collusion with other weird people mentioning no names!

    greenwych

  47. LUCI says:

    Re: Spirit Of The Greenwood by Barbara Green
    researcher You Bastard,You know that is a bloody lie!You did bombard me with stuff,which is the reason i took Davids side.Up until then all i knew about you and David,was that his book was convincing,and yours wasnt.It sounded completely pinched from a hammer film.You Lying Sod.And i am aware you got me banned ,you stupid git.i know sxactly how you did it,writing all that rubbish about” His Holiness “being offended and all that.What a nerve!When he isnt even a real genuine bishop,just a pratt.ive took on worse battles than you, you stupid pratt,trying to intimidate me will get you nowhere.You can stick your spider where it will be most usefull.

  48. LUCI says:

    Re: Spirit Of The Greenwood by Barbara Green
    For Researcher PS.And you are not talking to some stupid youngster either,im someone who has the ability to judge for myself whats right or wrong,It was you yourself,with your ridiculous silly book and even sillier behaviour that put me against youYOU STUPID IGNORANT MAN.If only you could admit this and appologise for all the rubbish you sent me on Arcadia,we might get somewhere.

  49. greenwych says:

    Re: Spirit Of The Greenwood by Barbara Green
    That is exactly the point Lucy but you will never get batman to admit it he is other than the perfect gentleman( this is what he wrote about himself in the artcile I published then he said I was being defamatory!) of impeccable breeding and manners, a knight errant and expert swordsman whose word was his bond etc –I have been trying to reason with him for years–David even longer. He–or whoever he is pretending to be at the time, simply churn out the same spiel–you can spot its all the same person anyway, and if it was one of these numerous “supporters” who pop up on message boards doing his dirty work, supposedly with the bishop knowing nothing about it–as if!!!!

    He wont answer awkward questions–that is anything which queries his version of events

    He then counter attacks with personal abuse which is both untrue and usually pretty silly

    He lumps you as a Farrant follower–ie a witch or satanist because you have been so impertenant to question his word about everything and everyone

    Only his version is allowed to be “the truth”

    The bishop is always right and the victim of a “hate campaign” because you have dared to question him or doubt his version of events.

    You simply cannot reason with him–I am sure you have guessed it by now, how he has twisted it round the fact he sent me, and you–and many other people–cartloads of unsolicited anti farrant propoganda–he wont even admit it!
    None of us had even heard of David until he intruduced us all to him, yet he refuses to admit he was the one who, as it were, put us in touch with him. And just because we have asked David for his version we are then called “disloyal” and satanic, making a hate campaign and goodness knows what else!

    Its Hopeless!

    greenwych

  50. Vampire Research Society says:

    Re: Spirit Of The Greenwood by Barbara Green
    “I was accused of being “disloyal” and also a Satanist!!!!” – Barbara Green

    You ARE disloyal. Even people in your own camp recognise that fact. But when and where were you ever accused of being a Satanist? That is you acting as an extension to Farrant who spreads the same fabricated propaganda. In Farrant’s case, he has only been accused of theatrical Satanism for the sake of generating self-publicity (what would you call someone who admits in an article written by himself that he evoked a “satanic force” after cutting a naked female with a knife in Highgate Cemetery?*), while in reality he is an attention-seeker who will do and say anything to see his name in print.

    * http://tinyurl.com/3xaz7kz

    This is what Illgrace posted on the Pagan Network on Hallowe’en 2006:

    “Oh, I wouldn’t worry to much about Master Farrant. This dude will crawl on his knees and drag his tongue along the tarmac of the M6 for 100 miles for 4 inches of print. He’s a publicity junkie of the first water. Anybody that has had the misfortune to have read his ‘essay’s on pagan forums … if he can’t ‘shock you’ (oh, puleese) he will bang on and on and on and on about whatever fantasy trip he’s on at the time. You can’t believe anything he is getting his 0.2 seconds of fame for, so I doubt any of this will happen – he just wanted the picture of his lovely undead-like mug on the front of a paper – any paper would do. Indeed, I have a kind of paper in mind :-).”

    “He wont answer awkward questions.” – Barbara Green

    Have you put any questions to him? You have been told how you can do this on his Q & A blog. Yet you don’t ask him any questions. All you do is post abuse behind his back.

    “He lumps you as a Farrant follower–ie a witch or satanist because you have been so impertenant to question his word about everything and everyone.” – Barbara Green

    If you are talking about the bishop, WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE?

    You could face him and ask whatever questions you like, but when he sends you a PM you respond with personal abuse and immediately share his private message with Farrant while discussing it on the internet. If that is not the behaviour of a Farrant follower, I don’t what is?

    http://tinyurl.com/39rgdf9

    “Yet he refuses to admit he was the one who, as it were, put us in touch with him.” – Barbara Green

    You read a book in which barely a handful of pages mention Farrant in relation to the Highgate Vampire case and the ensuing court cases. How does it follow that the author “put you in touch with Farrant” because you read a book in which Farrant is mentioned in passing? If you read a book that mentions the Moors Murderers would you accuse the author of that book of introducing you to Ian Brady and Myra Hindley? That is how asinine your argument is.

    “Its Hopeless!” – Barbara Green

    What is “hopeless” is a woman older than Farrant (now approaching sixty-five years) who posts the same repetitious and infantile nonsense year in and year out, almost every day of her life, against someone who wants nothing to do with her and whom she has only briefly met twice a quarter of a century ago. You have an obsession which has grown down the years and is now out of control.

  51. DavidFarrant says:

    Re: Spirit Of The Greenwood by Barbara Green
    “What is “hopeless” is a woman older than Farrant (now approaching sixty-five years) who posts the same repetitious and infantile nonsense year in and year out, almost every day of her life, against someone who wants nothing to do with her and whom she has only briefly met twice a quarter of a century ago. This is an obsession!”

    You are really referring to yourself, ‘anonymous’. If you didn’t keep pouring out all these reams of your twisted allegations, there would be no need to have to retract them.

    You seem to be totally obsessed with Barbara and myself, ‘anonymous’, just because we dispute the ridiculous claims you make about ‘vampires’. But by now, you have more than disclosed your true identity.

    By the way, we are all still waiting to hear more about the vampire you claimed to have staked after she turned into a ‘giant spider’. Your live-in girlfriend, wasn’t it? if memory serves me correctly?

    David Farrant, Patron, YRHS

  52. Vampire Research Society says:

    Re: Spirit Of The Greenwood by Barbara Green
    “Would you perhaps telling us why you applied for an excemtion from paying Council Tax, in effect costing the tax payer thousands of pounds over the years?” – Farrant

    I am obviously not the person this is aimed at. You can only see one person when the red mist descends. Your false allegation against Bishop Manchester can nevertheless easily be dismissed. It is the raving of a hate-filled stalker with too much time on his hands. Council tax is payed on any property the bishop owns. You, on the other hand, pay no council tax and have claimed benefits throughout your entire working life. You are now an old-age-pensioner, of course, but you still receive welfare handouts. When you failed to pay the £20,000 costs in the Daily Express libel case which you lost it was the taxpayer who ended up paying your court costs. You have not repaid one penny of the costs awarded against you. Why should ordinary taxpayers have to pay your debts?

  53. greenwych says:

    Re: Spirit Of The Greenwood by Barbara Green
    Thanks David

    I did get an invite to his Friends blog–well I would not class myself as a friend so I declined. Anyway methinks it twas a trap of sorts, his nibs can, will and does obvioulsy know exatly what is said about him by his so called Vampire Society or other shop fronts he presents in a regular succession, all saying the same thing–Bishop Manchester is Mr Wonderful and knows nothing about this discussion about his good self –haha–but they obviously know eveything about HIM –who gives them their lines to read if not the bish himself, in fact, as we know, writes them under one guise or another. TheY presume to know his mind and history on all counts–seems very suspicious to me–surely–if “they” exist, they would have to check with him first for fear of, perish the thought, getting something wrong–easily done with that guy unless you stick by the Motto

    EVERYTHING BISHOP MANCHESTER DOES IS RIGHT HOLY AND GOOD, PAST AND PRESENT, HE HAS NEVER UTTERED A FIB OR UNKIND WORD OR ACCUSED ANYONE OF DICKIPOGGY GOINGS ON IN HIS ENTIRE LIFE , OR WRITTEN UNTRUE TALES OF HIS VAMPIRE HUNTING EXPLOITS , AND IFPEOPLE DONT CLAIM UNQUESTIONING OBEDIENCE THEN OR SEEK TO ASK INCONVENIENT QUESTIONS LIKE NAME YOUR SOURCES ETC,AND AUTOMATICALLY HATE DAVID FARRANT BECAUSE THE BISHOP DEOSNT LIKE HIM AND SAYS SO, THEN THEY ARE “DISLOYAL” “MISCREANTS” “FARRANTITES” “DABBLERS” and suchlike.

    If you stick by these rules you wont get any hassle!

    greenwych

  54. Vampire Research Society says:

    Re: Spirit Of The Greenwood by Barbara Green
    “If you didn’t keep pouring out all these reams of your twisted allegations, there would be no need to have to retract them.” – Farrant

    But it is YOU who is self-publishing libellous material containing stolen images every five minutes. If you do that you must bear the consequence of your actions. Had you not made the reference to the VRS president in your article “How It All Began” on this website there would have been absolutely no need to have to retract your completely unnecessary smear. But you just can’t help yourself. Such is your hatred, you cannot get through an interview or write an article without including some sort of reference to this man.

    “You seem to be totally obsessed with Barbara and myself.” – Farrant

    Based on what evidence? Because people like me redress your personal attacks on the VRS president with whom you are both obviously totally obsessed?

    You are the one self-publishing booklets about this man.

    You are the one making nasty references about him on the internet every day.

    You are the one who contacts his family and friends with your malicious material.

    You are the one who devotes every waking moment of your life scheming to defame and somehow try to harm this man who you haven’t actually seen or spoken to in decades.

    He, on the other hand, wants nothing to do with you and ignores you. He has not mentioned you in a broadcast interview since March 1970 (and only then to try and help you) and makes it a condition of any interview he gives that you are not discussed. Meanwhile, you cannot get through any interview you give without constantly mentioning him in a derogatory and abusive manner throughout. Steve Genier interviewed you no less than three times in the space of few months for his blogtalk radio and on each occasion you talked of virtually nothing else but your archnemesis.

    Who, in truth, is obsessed with whom?

  55. DavidFarrant says:

    Re: Spirit Of The Greenwood by Barbara Green
    Yes, just like you are ignoring me now, Sean (sorry, I mean ‘anonymous’!).

    David Farrant, President, BPOS

  56. greenwych says:

    Re: Spirit Of The Greenwood by Barbara Green
    If he wants nothing to do with you, David, then he should tell these interefering busybody guys who are writing in his name so to speak, putting dickipoggy posts up about you all the time all about you, and tell them to stop making nuisances of themselves as they are disobeying their leader who WANTS NOTHING TO DO WITH YOU!! He cant expect you not to reply if they keep writing rubbish aboutyou–surely he can figure that out or has the tea pot cosy cooked his brains?
    ( same applies to me and others!)

    greenwych

  57. Vampire Research Society says:

    Re: Spirit Of The Greenwood by Barbara Green
    “Yes, just like you are ignoring me now, Sean (sorry, I mean ‘anonymous’!).” – Farrant

    If evidence were needed to demonstrate your obsession with a certain person, you have just provided it. You have used this ploy for years to avoid answering questions put directly to you. When it is proven to everyone that someone (for example, Anthony Hogg who is based in Australia, and others besides) is not your archnemesis you STILL refuse to answer any questions put to you and accuse that person of being in league with the individual you are totally obsessed with; even though such an accusation is patently preposterous.

    “If he wants nothing to do with you, David, then he should tell these interefering busybody guys who are writing in his name so to speak, putting dickipoggy posts up about you all the time all about you, and tell them to stop making nuisances of themselves as they are disobeying their leader who WANTS NOTHING TO DO WITH YOU!! – Barbara Green

    As you and Farrant have had explained to you in the past, this idea exists only in your head. The person you are obsessed with has already stated on the internet that he would advise people to ignore Farrant, should they seek his opinion on the matter, but he would not tell anyone what they should do. That is up to them. Even members of the Vampire Research Society are free to form their own opinions and act on them accordingly. Even so, we are aware that the VRS president prefers that we do not engage in anything because it merely provides Farrant with the publicity he desperately craves. We are nevertheless free to do as we see fit on this and any other matter.

    On another thread, Farrant ludicrously claims that the VRS came into existence in the 1980s. He is actually talking about his “BPOS” which cannot be traced back prior to 1983. Farrant is the only member of his “society” which is why any board, blog or forum he opens in the name of the “BPOS” attracts no members; just the curious and casual internet surfers who usually reside in far flung parts of the world and know nothing about Farrant’s non-existent “society” apart from what he tells them. The Vampire Research Society, founded on 2 February 1970, arose as an autonamous unit out of the British Occult Society whose president was Seán Manchester until 8 August 1988 when the BOS was formally dissolved. Seán Manchester had been its president since June 1967, and he remains the VRS president.

    The BOS made its television debut on 13 March 1970 when its president featured on Today (Thames Television) to represent the Society’s investigation into reported happenings in and around Highgate Cemetery, London, that had been accumulating since early 1967. A number of witnesses to an alleged vampire spectre were also interviewed by Sandra Harris for Today. These consisted largely of children and a young man by the name of David Farrant. When asked what he had seen by Sandra Harris, Farrant described what he alleged to have encountered a few weeks earlier as looking as though it had been “dead for a long time,” insisting that it was “evil.” Farrant’s description would alter radically in later years, eventually becoming “mist” with “two red eyes” a quarter of a century later. Throughout 1970, at least, Farrant made no pretence of any association or membership within the British Occult Society. Needless to say, he was not then, or at any time, a member of the British Occult Society.

    From 1971, Farrant began to describe himself as a wiccan high priest and occultist, who was also involved in spiritism, ie contacting the dead. In August 1995, however, he revealed in Rob Brautigam’s home-produced International Vampire magazine that he was “in fact no longer a Wiccan as such” and was “no longer dependent on any man-made Creeds or inflicted doctrines.” That notwithstanding, prior to the autumn of 1970, he was neither wiccan nor occultist, and seemed closer to something more resembling Roman Catholicism, often wearing, as he did, a Catholic rosary around his neck for press and television interviews.

    Seán Manchester and David Farrant have only appeared on the same television transmission twice, both times in 1970, when Seán Manchester represented the British Occult Society on the Today programme, 13 March 1970, and, some months later, on the BBC’s 24 Hours programme, 15 October 1970, where Seán Manchester was again introduced as the president of the British Occult Society whose North London premises was included in the film footage during the programme.

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

    In the second of these filmed interviews, filmed by the BBC on location at Highgate Cemetery, Farrant demonstrated his stalking technique with a home-made cross and wooden stake, whilst adorned with a Roman Catholic rosary around his neck. This is completely at odds with what he today claims he was doing. The film report was reshown by the BBC in May 1999. There was no mention of his being involved in wicca or the occult. In the original 24 Hours interview, however, he did echo the fact that Satanists had been using the cemetery for clandestine ceremonies. This view was also held by Seán Manchester, the British Occult Society, the police, the media, and many members of the public.

    For the record:

    (1) David Farrant has at no time worked, investigated or researched any case with Seán Manchester and the British Occult Society.

    (2) David Farrant has at no time been a member of the British Occult Society, nor has he been otherwise associated with the BOS.

    (3) In March 1970, Farrant took Seán Manchester to the spot in Highgate Cemetery where he had claimed in the press to have witnessed a vampire. The two men met due to (and soon after) Farrant’s letter to his local newspaper, published on 6 February 1970. Seán Manchester interviewed many witnesses, and some of them took him to the scene of their alleged experience. A photographic record was usually kept by the Society. A picture of Farrant and BOS president Seán Manchester, together at Highgate Cemetery, was first published on the front page of the Hampstead & Highgate Express, 6 March 1970. Later the same picture appeared in Seán Manchester’s first edition of The Highgate Vampire (British Occult Society, 1985).

    (4) It should be clarified that David Farrant’s “British Psychic and Occult Society” (1983-?) was in no way connected to the British Occult Society (1860-1988) whose president for its last twenty-one years, prior to dissolution on 8 August 1988, was Seán Manchester.

    (5) David Farrant’s appearance on Today was solely as one of a number of witnesses who claimed to have seen a traditional, ie blood-sucking, vampire at the graveyard. He claimed no connection to the British Occult Society whose president, on the same programme, warned against Farrant’s proposed lone vampire hunt. This was eventually executed by Farrant some five months later and it became the reason for his second television interview. Farrant’s presence on 24 Hours was entirely due to his arrest in Highgate Cemetery on 17 August 1970 (when he was found in possession of a sharp wooden stake and a Christian cross).

    In August 1970, Seán Manchester received a hand-delivered note from Farrant (published on page 110 of The Highgate Vampire, Gothic Press, 1991), followed by correspondence sent from Brixton Prison where Farrant was being held on remand until he was acquitted of the charge of being in an enclosed area for an unlawful purpose because Highgate Cemetery cannot be described as “an enclosed area.”

    (6) Toward the end of 1970, Farrant slowly began to dismiss the vampire despite him having a vampire face mural on the wall above his home-made altar. His small flat in Archway Road was raided by Scotland Yard detectives in early 1974. They discovered the altar and mural of the vampire.* Farrant was held on remand until his various trials at the Old Bailey were heard in June 1974. The outcome of these trials was Farrant receiving a prison sentence of four months and eight months. He appealed against his sentence. All his appeals failed.

    * A photograph of Farrant’s altar beneath a vampire face mural can be found on page 74 of The Vampire Hunter’s Handbook (Gothic Press, 1997), while another photograph of the same altar, including the vampire face mural, plus Farrant standing before it clutching a ritual dagger, is revealed on page 49 of From Satan To Christ (Holy Grail, 1988).

    http://www.gothicpress.freeserve.co.uk/Bookshop.htm

  58. DavidFarrant says:

    Re: Spirit Of The Greenwood by Barbara Green
    AND THERE CAME A GIANT SPIDER . . .

    Still talking about yourself in the 3rd person ‘anonymous’. You really give yourself away by dropping your own name all the time.

    I founded the British Occult Society in 1967, for the purposes of investigating supernatural phenomena, but its purpose was NOT to investigate vampires; indeed, we did not even believe in them. I knew you at the time, ‘anonymous’, and I visited your Holloway flat for dinner on a number of occasions. Indeed, it was here that you showed a group of us the 8mm home-made film you had made on the Highgate ‘vampire’ in 1969. Perhaps not surprisingly, this film starred yourself. Your then girlfriend ‘Lusia’ was also in this film which showed her being ‘staked’ by yourself.

    You first approached myself in the Woodman pub in Highgate when I was sitting with Toni Hill and his wife and I was with my first wife Mary. You were always pestering me to find out about BOS investigations and to join the Society in this respect. I eventually allowed you to become a ‘fringe’ member but you were expelled from all Society activities in 1970. One reason was, you kept trying to put ‘vampires’ on the Society’s agenda and in this respect released a lot of Society photographs to the Press without prior permission. The other reason was you were an active member of the National Front Party – indeed you canvassed for them at the 1970 June election.
    Following your expulsion, you suddenly took to calling yourself ‘President’ of the Society much to the amusememt of the Press and the local populace. Subsequently, stories often got into both the National and local Press about this seen conflict within the Society. These newspaper reports are all on record.
    Your claims contnued for many years and eventually decided me to change the name of the Society to the British Psychic and Occult Society in 1983.
    This latter story was also reported in the Press.

    Now again, why do you keep avoiding the issue of the beautiful young vampire, ‘Lusia’, who you claim you ‘staked’ after she had turned into a giant spider.

    After all, it was you who made this claim, not myself!

    David Farrant, President, BPOS

  59. greenwych says:

    Re: Spirit Of The Greenwood by Barbara Green
    But if the bishop wants nothing to do with David–or me-why are you going against his wishes and stoking up the fires?

    greenwych

  60. greenwych says:

    Re: Spirit Of The Greenwood by Barbara Green
    Are you saying you wish to insult David and myself up hill and down dale–on the bishops behalf–( who doesnt know what you are up to and would not like it if he knew as he wants nothing to do with farrant) ) but we havent got to reply–as this makes us–well you know……..

    Is that what you are saying?

    We havent to reply, we have to agree that we are very naughty persons?

    looking forward to your reply

    greenwych

  61. Vampire Research Society says:

    Re: Spirit Of The Greenwood by Barbara Green
    David Farrant claims that he first met Seán Manchester in “late 1967.” Seán Manchester is adamant that he first met David Farrant in “early 1970.” Farrant conveniently slips all manner of unsubstantiated allegations into this three years discrepancy. For example, Farrant has latterly claimed he was entertained with a screening of an 8mm horror movie made by and starring Seán Manchester, and that the papier mache vampire he claims appears in the movie is what also appears in photographs of the corporeal shell of the exorcised vampire in Seán Manchester’s account The Highgate Vampire (Gothic Press, 1991) and in television programmes featuring images from that book. Seán Manchester strenuously denies this and invites anyone who saw such a movie as described by Farrant to come forward and be identified. He states that no such movie was made; that Farrant was not someone he would have ever considered entertaining in his home; and that, even when they did eventually become acquainted in March 1970, he only visited Farrant at Tony Hill’s coal bunker in Archway Road and later, following Farrant’s term in prison, an attic bedsitting room in Muswell Hill Road.

    David Farrant, on the other hand, alleges in an entry on his blog for 2 July 2009:

    “I first met [Seán Manchester] in late 1967 in a pub called The Woodman in Highgate. I had brought Mary back from Spain to London in March 1967 after she had discovered that she was pregnant. We got married in a Roman Catholic Church in September 1967 and it was around this time that we used to frequent The Woodman pub just across the road from where we were living in Highgate. Mary had become friendly with a young mother nicknamed ‘Zibby’ who was married to a man named Tony [Hill] and sometimes the four of us would go into The Woodman and spend a few hours there. Now, at this time, a small trio jazz band used to play in the Saloon bar from a make-shift wooden platform at the back. There was somebody on drums, an electric guitarist and another individual [Seán Manchester] who played the saxophone.”

    There is no mention of them meeting so far. In Farrant’s self-published “autobiography,” however, which first made its appearance in 2009, he claims: “I learned that he had an avid interest in ‘ghosts’ and the supernatural, although he was later to say that his ‘speciality’ was vampires. He suggested that we must all meet up again when he wasn’t playing, and have a chat about the subject.”

    This claim is contradicted by Mary Farrant who denies her husband’s interest in the supernatural at this time or indeed him knowing Seán Manchester in person even if he heard Tony Hill mention him. She might eventually have become aware of Seán Manchester from whatever Hill told her when they spent six months living together. She met him only once when Tony Hill and Mary Farrant called on Seán Manchester when they first “eloped.” They wanted him to put them up for the night, but Seán Manchester would not become involved. He was also acquainted with Elizabeth Hill and did not want to be compromised.

    Farrant could have learned of Seán Manchester’s paranormal interests from Hill with whom Farrant was only superficially acquainted at the time due to Hill’s increasing interest in Farrant’s wife who worked as a barmaid in the evenings at The Woodman; though Hill would have known nothing about any case his old employer was involved in. Seán Manchester was neither acquainted with Farrant or Farrant’s wife, Mary, but knew Tony Hill from the time Hill worked part-time in Seán Manchester’s darkroom in the 1960s when the latter ran a photographic studio.

    Tony Hill and Mary Farrant became an item and “eloped” for six months. Seán Manchester did not personally know Farrant, but was vaguely aware of having seen Mary work as a barmaid and met her just once when Hill ran off with her for six months. When Hill returned to his own wife and Mary returned briefly to her husband it was not long before Farrant was declared bankrupt and became evicted from his flat for not paying any rent. By which time Mary Farrant had left her husband with their two children and returned to her parents in Southampton. The next time Farrant saw her was at the Old Bailey in June 1974 when she was called as a defence witness on his behalf. Mary confirmed under oath that her husband had no interest in ghosts, witchcraft or the occult, and that Farrant’s visits to Highgate Cemetery were for “a bit of a laugh and a joke and to look round.” Court reports of Mary Farrant’s testimony published in newspapers in June 1974 can be found at this link:

    http://tinyurl.com/32ql66c

    Farrant published on his personal blog, 2 July 2009: “I first met [Seán Manchester] in late 1967 in a pub called the Woodman in Highgate.”

    However, on the same blog one week later, 9 July 2009, Farrant claimed: “You asked how I first actually spoke to [Seán Manchester] … I believe it was in early 1969.”

    Such revisionism and the layering of one falsehood on top of another is reminiscent of Farrant’s self-proclaimed sightings of the vampire phenomenon at Highgate Cemetery.

    His earliest published statement was in the form of a letter he wrote to the editor of the Hampstead & Highgate Express which appeared on 6 February 1970. In that published letter, Farrant claims to have witnessed “a grey figure” no less than three times:

    “The first occasion was on Christmas Eve. … The second sighting, a week later, was also brief. Last week, the figure appeared, only a few yards inside the gates. … I have no knowledge in this field and I would be interested to hear if any other readers have seen anything of this nature.”

    If we roll forward some thirty years and read Farrant’s self-published pamphlets, forum messages and blog comments, we discover he claims to have had only two sightings. Now roll forward almost four decades from that first letter to a local newspaper and listen to an interview Farrant gave on a blogtalk internet radio in 2009. He now apparently claims to have had only one sighting of what became known as the Highgate Vampire. That, at least, is what he told Steve Genier when interviewed in June 2009. He would reiterate “one sighting” when interviewed by Andrew Gough for Arcadia later in the same year. The reality is rather more prosaic. Farrant probably had no sightings and boarded what he perceived to be a convenient publicity bandwagon.

    Let us return to Farrant’s blog of 9 July 2009 because in it he continues when he allegedly met Seán Manchester in “early 1969” (having suddenly revised his “late 1967” claim from a week earlier):

    “He [Seán Manchester] said that the ‘ghost’ I had been reported as witnessing at Highgate Cemetery might indeed be one such ‘real’ vampire!”

    Yet Farrant first “reported” his so-called ghostly apparition (which we all know was a hoax) in February 1970, not late 1969. And he did so to the Hampstead & Highgate Express. This was his overture in the press prior to which he had not reported anything to anyone.

    The casual observer is obliged to agree that Seán Manchester and David Farrant first met at the end of February 1970 or beginning of March 1970 and that their meeting came about solely because of the latter’s alleged sightings of a spectral figure in a letter he had published in the Hampstead & Highgate Express. According to Tony Hill, that letter was an attempt by Farrant to hoax a ghost story in his local newspaper after having heard tales in the pubs he frequented of a vampire said to haunt Highgate Cemetery. These tales of a vampire had been circulating for many years. Farrant’s “ghost” was entirely an invention of his own. In early 1970 he took to wearing ghost-like make-up and frightening people as they walked past the graveyard. See links:

    http://tinyurl.com/346ovea

    http://tinyurl.com/32p3w9z

    This was one of the “silly games” he played which Mary Farrant referred to when she appeared as a defence witness at the Old Bailey in June 1974. Little did Farrant realise that, while he was playing at being a “ghost,” a genuine supernatural entity lurked nearby.

    Seán Manchester’s version of events is recorded in his introduction to The Vampire Hunter’s Handbook (Gothic Press, 1997):

    “It was whilst blowing a long jazz solo on the tenor saxophone in The Woodman, Highgate, where [Farrant’s] wife worked some evenings as a barmaid, that Farrant first caught sight of me in 1968. I would remain oblivious of him, however, until the beginning of the next decade. Who knows what went through his mind as he listened to my improvised harmonic structures, accompanied by a perspiring rhythm section, in that dimly lit venue for modern jazz aficionados? It was not his kind of music, but he mentioned it when I interviewed him in 1970.”

    On pages 62-63 of The Vampire Hunter’s Handbook, Seán Manchester reveals:

    “His alleged sightings of the vampire were to coincide with the time when he was ensconced in [Tony Hill’s] coal cellar. His wife was gone and so were the people who had helped him squander his money. His interest was not the occult at this time, but pub-crawling and the collecting of exotic birds; mostly cockatoos, parrots and macaws. This earned him the nickname ‘Birdman.’ Ironically, Hill had the nickname ‘Eggman.’ Relishing the attention he was now receiving, following his alleged sightings of a vampire, he took foolish risks and ended up being arrested in August 1970 for being in an enclosed area for an unlawful purpose. His ‘vampire hunting’ days were over.”

    The Hampstead & Highgate Express, 6 March 1970, records the first meeting of David Farrant and Seán Manchester on its front page, under the banner headline “Why Do The Foxes Die?” The newspaper recounts:

    “David Farrant … returned to the spot last weekend and disovered a dead fox. ‘Several other foxes have also been found dead in the cemetery,’ he said at his home in Priestwood Mansions, Archway Road, Highgate. ‘The odd thing is there was no outward sign of how they died. Much remains unexplained, but what I have recently learnt all points to the vampire theory being the most likely answer. Should this be so, I for one am prepared to pursue it, taking whatever means might be necessary so that we can all rest.’ The vampire theory was suggested last week by Mr Seán Manchester, president of the British Occult Society. … Mr Farrant and Mr Manchester met in the cemetery at the weekend.”

    http://tinyurl.com/yad6pvs

    The British Occult Society (1860-1988) was an investigation bureau which existed solely for the purpose of examining occult claims and alleged paranormal activity. It gave birth to the Vampire Research Society (which still survives) on 2 February 1970.

    Farrant carried out his threat to “pursue [the vampire], taking whatever means might be necessary” and was arrested on the night of 17 August 1970. The Daily Express, 19 August 1970, reveals Farrant’s explanation:

    “‘My intention was to search out the supernatural being and destroy it by plunging the stake [found in his possession when arrested in Highgate Cemetery by police] in its heart.’” The report continues: “David Farrant pleaded guilty at Clerkenwell, London, to entering St Michael’s churchyard, Highgate Cemetery, for an unlawful purpose. Farrant told police he had just moved to London when he heard people talking about the vampire in Highgate Cemetery. In a statement he said that he heard the vampire rises out of a grave and wanders about the cemetery on the look-out for human beings on whose blood it thrives. Police keeping watch for followers of a black magic cult arrested him. He was remanded in custody for reports. Last night, Mr Seán Manchester, leader of the British Occult Society, said: ‘I am convinced that a vampire exists in Highgate Cemetery. Local residents and passers-by have reported seeing a ghostlike figure of massive proportions near the north gate.’”

    http://tinyurl.com/2ewz5uv

    http://tinyurl.com/2woneky

    View Farrant’s latter-day self-revelations in a French television interview he gave in 2008. Click on this link:

    http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=ezDZBOZZcVQ

    The video begins with self-proclaimed French Satanist Jean-Paul Bourre who befriended Farrant in January 1980. Together they concocted all manner of skullduggery for media consumption and their own self-aggrandisement. The shambling shell of Farrant shuffles onto the screen some third of the way into the video as he nervously speaks from outside the gates of Highgate Cemetery. Next is a scene at his Muswell Hill bedsitting room where viewers are shown photograph albums containing naked females he had duped into his malefic publicity stunts involving phoney witchcraft and pseudo-occultism. One of these wretched creatures is Martine de Sacy whose nude image in a mausoleum containing satanic symbols became vital evidence for the successful prosecution of Farrant at London’s Old Bailey.

    This pathetic man appears oblivious to the implication of what he is displaying on screen and is clearly without any remorse. An arch-deceiver who always attempts to turns everything into something it is not, Farrant might make an interesting case study for the psychiatrist in search of a project concerning narcissistic personality disorders, or a priest specialising in the examination of demonic possession brought about by compulsive dabbling in pseudo-occultism for publicity, but is otherwise tedious and ultimately boring beyond belief.

    A chronicle of Farrant’s obsessive publicity-seeking and descent into darkness can be viewed by clicking below. Due to spurious complaints from Farrant and his clique of misfits this material carries a “content warning,” which is bizarre in the circumstances, but can nonetheless be viewed at the following link:

    http://thehighgatevampire.blogspot.com

  62. greenwych says:

    Re: Spirit Of The Greenwood by Barbara Green
    If, as you state, Mr Manchester wants nothing to do with David Farrant( and myself) as you claim why are you busybodying yourselves writing all this stuff about him, which in all fairness, and in the interests of free speech in this country, David is entitled to refute if he feels it is untrue or mirespresentative. What exactly do you want me to do now I have read this blurb–yet again! Forgive me if I simply havent the time or patience to go into every link you so kindly have provided. So, What do you expect me to do?
    Should I be impressed?

    Say, ” Gosh–I never thought of it like that before, thank you for drawing my attention to this dreadful person and his misdeeds–what shall I do now to please you–and his holiness?” cos you will have to tell him of your successful mission on his behalf, wont you, otherwise you will have wasted all that time putting the story up–plus links as well–so what happens now-

    Will you stop writing all this, lets face it, tosh about David, and myself?

    Cos you have already told us that the bishop doesnt want to ever have anything to do with David ever again and it has been a great trial to him over the past 40 years sending out all this stuff about David’s misdeeds and there is nothing more he would like in the world than to hear nothing more.

    But you vampire society are fanning the flames, he might be very annoyed if I tell him what you are up to, as he doesnt know–according to youseselves– does he?

    greenwych

  63. Vampire Research Society says:

    Re: Spirit Of The Greenwood by Barbara Green
    “You were an active member of the National Front Party – indeed you canvassed for them at the 1970 June election” – David Farrant

    As this is a very serious allegation to be levelled at anyone, much less a bishop, so it will be dealt with in some detail in order to reveal the true motive behind Farrant’s desire to publish such a damaging libel.

    A Sunday People article in 1977, written by someone in collusion with David Farrant, claimed that the existence of a Neo-Nazi cell in north London during that period was “phoney.” Ironically, within a short space of time after that article’s publication a fire-bombing campaign on north London synagogues was carried out by the very organisation claimed by the Sunday People’s Frank Thorne to be “phoney.”

    Seán Manchester’s position is quite clear. He has no interest in party politics and has at no time in his life been a member of any political party. False allegations to the effect that he has been a National Front member, and canvassed for them, stem exclusively from David Farrant; the same David Farrant who attempted to stand as a WWP candidate in the 1978 British General Election; the same David Farrant who recommended that potential voters should switch to the National Front when he stood down; the same David Farrant who has sought and received support from Nazi-minded individuals with far right associations to attack Seán Manchester. In the ’70s and ’80s Seán Manchester was the North London Regional Co-ordinator for the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament and an active member of Pax Christi. His peace campaigning was supported by such eminent figures as Lord Fenner Brockway, often resulting in media coverage. When Manchester led the “Fast for Peace” one Christmas he was joined by the elderly Lord Brockway and other peace campaigners. On that occasion thugs believed to be Neo-Nazis attacked those fasting. This was reported by local newspapers at the time. So the suggestion by Farrant that Seán Manchester is, or ever has been, a Neo-Nazi is not only risible but ludicrous in the extreme. Furthermore, this allegation is not even hinted at, much less suggested, in the Sunday People article itself.

    John Russell Pope, a collaborating supporter of David Farrant since 1973, has a long history of Neo-Nazi involvement. He has forwarded articles to the National Front in relatively recent times. He resides at the London home of his late uncle, Bill Binding, who was in the news in 2001 when he attempted to join the Conservative Party:

    “Conservative leader Iain Duncan Smith says he will be looking at whether action is needed over reports that a former deputy leader of the Ku Klux Klan in Britain has joined the Tory party. Bill Binding, 76, from Clapton, east London, who stood for the far-right British National Party (BNP) in the 1997 election, told the Guardian he had left the Klan four years ago after deciding different races were genetically alike.”

    Binding’s nephew John Pope runs Jack the Ripper tours in east London. On his website Pope describes himself as “a master of the black arts, a third degree witch and Odinist … a natural shaman and master of Yoga and other preternatural mysteries and systems.” He also claims to be a descendant of Robin Hood, as well as being of “blood line to Jack the Ripper and Dracula”. For decades he and his associate Farrant have been openly hostile toward Seán Manchester. Pope, who nowadays styles himself “Pope-de Locksley,” is dubbed on his website as “The Scariest Man in London.”

    Photograph of John Pope in the 1970s: http://tinyurl.com/395bz6e

    Frank Thorne’s sensationalist piece (known as a “spoiler”) in the Sunday People, 9 October 1977 was based exclusively on that newspaper reporter’s collaboration with David Farrant who, then as now, remains violently antipathetic toward Seán Manchester. Farrant had not long been released from prison when his collusion with Thorne took place. The Sunday People article came about when Seán Manchester refused to collude with Frank Thorne on an investigative piece he had begun to have published as a commission with the Times Group Newspapers who at that time published the Borehamwood Post, Finchley Times and Hendon Times etc. This resulted in Thorne harassing the bishop’s parents on the doorstep of their Islington home. Seán Manchester asked the journalist to desist on the grounds that his parents were not involved, nor responsible for any story he might be looking to find in order to spoil, and that one of them, the Manchester’s father, was suffering with a heart condition. Thorne ignored such pleas and Seán Manchester was obliged to meet the journalist, albeit briefly, at the offices of the Sunday People on 5 October 1977 in order to prevent any further harassment of his parents. Such is the blackmail exerted by tabloid journalists.

    This meeting confirmed Seán Manchester’s worst fears when it became apparent that Thorne, who suffered from a serious alcohol problem which eventually cost him his job, was in contact with David Farrant who was clearly willing to go along with anything the newspaper wanted that might cause Seán Manchester damage. Frank Thorne had decided the direction his piece on the Manchester’s already extant work was heading after hearing from Farrant, and four days later published his “spoiler,” as it is known in the print media, against the Times Group’s exclusive series already in progress under the Seán Manchester’s byline.

    In this “spoiler” – titled “We Unmask Phoney Nazis” – Thorne attributed quotes to three people. They all denied making them and all issued complaints. Complaints against Frank Thorne and the Sunday People were filed with Mirror Group Newspapers Ltd by Seán Manchester, Mike Clarke and John Russell Pope. A complaint was also lodged with the Press Council by Seán Manchester against Frank Thorne and the Sunday People.

    A statement was witnessed and signed by John Pope in pursuit of his complaint against the Sunday People. A copy was also included among the documents lodged with the Press Council by Seán Manchester in his case against Frank Thorne. Pope’s testimony was added to illustrate that someone who was completely unsupportive of Manchester would nevertheless not allow himself to be bullied by Thorne. It is understood that the following statement transcribed from his original taped recollection was made at the insistence of Pope’s father, Fred Pope, who resented his son’s treatment by the newspaper:

    “On the evening of 6 October 1977, two men called at my home at [address deleted], Barnet, Hertfordshire, and without identifying themselves demanded to see me. My father thought they were police detectives by their manner. When invited to come inside, they refused and insisted that I accompany them to a nearby car. That is when they first revealed themselves to be working for the Sunday People. One, calling himself Frank Thorne, tried to make me say that a photograph of a man in a Nazi uniform was Seán Manchester. They showed me a copy of the Borehamwood Post and tried to make me say that the article called ‘The New Nazis’ was false. But they would not let me read any of the article and did not refer specifically to the ‘League of Imperial Fascists.’ They told me that I would be guaranteed future mention in their newspaper if I co-operated, but I was not prepared to let them use me in this way. The following evening I telephoned the Sunday People and asked to speak to the News Editor. I complained to him about his reporters’ methods, especially Frank Thorne, and reminded him that I belonged to a survivalist group that had political connections, further about which I did not wish to elaborate. I did not seem to get any satisfactory replies, so I spoke to him again on the telephone on Saturday morning, 8 October 1977, by which time I had been told by Seán Manchester what Frank Thorne had alleged I said on Thursday evening, which I knew to be false. I did not identify any person in the photographs shown to me.”

    A statement (ref; CFW/SP/P6282/6/3/78) issued by Mike Clarke, editor of the Borehamwood Post, was noted by the Press Council. This greatly respected newspaper editor denied all the remarks attributed to him by Frank Thorne in the Sunday People article of 9 October 1977. He underlined the fact that he had most definitely not said the words, nor anything similar, to the effect of “I’m afraid I’m left with egg on my face. I shall be taking legal advice.”

    The complaint lodged by Seán Manchester with the Press Council follows:

    “The Sunday People newspaper concocted an inaccurate article about me which they did not correct when presented with Mr John Pope’s statement and other evidence which showed none of Frank Thorne’s allegations against me to be true. Photographs belonging to me were used in an article without my permission. I was, however, promptly paid a sum of money for their use, which, unwisely, I accepted as compensation for what amounted to copyright theft. From the start I had made clear to Frank Thorne that I had no wish to ‘collaborate’ on the Nazi story as (a) it was my work, and (b) the Sunday People’s ‘treatment’ of my work, as proposed by Frank Thorne to me, was one I found to be unacceptable. Frank Thorne then threatened to use my material with or without my permission. None of the quotes attributed to me are true. I did not state to Frank Thorne that the ‘Nazi recruiting picture of John Pope’ was ‘faked.’ I did identify the person in the picture [of the ‘Commander’]. This was ignored by Frank Thorne.”

    A compelling piece of evidence presented to the Press Council was Frank Thorne’s complete reliance on collusion with David Farrant. Nobody other than Farrant was able to “identify” the Nazi Commander in the stolen photograph. For legal reasons Thorne fraudulently added John Pope’s name to the identification, but Pope absolutely denied making any such identification as his signed statement of 9 December 1977 attests. Furthermore, Pope, off the record, claimed that he had been “roughed up” by Thorne and the accompanying journalist when they took him away from his home for interrogation in their car.

    Incredibly, Farrant, who, remember, was and still is extremely antipathetic toward Seán Manchester, agreed to make a statement (probably seeing its enormous publicity potential) which he duly signed on 2 January 1978. The statement was lodged with the Press Council by the bishop.

    David Farrant’s statement follows:

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

    Unfortunately, the payment as a form of compensation by the Sunday People to Seán Manchester for the use of his pictures without permission technically placed the complainant in a contractual relationship with the newspaper, thus contravening paragraph 4 of the Press Council’s guidelines. The Press Council, therefore, was unable to process the complaint, but nonetheless acknowledged in writing that Seán Manchester, Mike Clarke and John Russell Pope had disavowed the quotes attributed to them by Frank Thorne in the Sunday People article. Six months after publication of the offending article, it was time for the journalist to reward Farrant with some promised publicity for his co-operation.

    Frank Thorne accompanied Farrant on a train journey to Grimsby where he was photographed with “fiancée” Nancy O’Hoski outside a church for a half-page feature about their proposed wedding. Published in the Sunday People, 16 April 1978, Thorne’s article opens with the following words:

    “Self-styled witch king David Farrant – the man jailed for desecrating a tomb and threatening detectives with voodoo – has a new shock in store. What’s more, Britain’s best-known Prince of Darkness is dreaming of a traditional white wedding.”

    The article quoted Farrant as saying; “I want to put my ghoulish past behind me now. Either I give up witchcraft or Nancy.”

    See Sunday People article here: http://tinyurl.com/2vo4qlm

    Soon after the story was printed, Farrant gave up Nancy O’Hoski, a speech therapist (Farrant suffers from a nervous stammer). They did not get married. There was never any intention on Farrant’s part of them getting wed. Then came a very curious turn of events. Within days of the publicity generated by his abandoned wedding plans in the Sunday People, Farrant prepared to stand as a candidate in the forthcoming British General Election. He launched what was described as the “Wicca Workers Party” to the cry of “Wiccans Awake!” Journalist and editor Peter Hounam wrote a front page story for the Hornsey Journal, 30 June 1978, that thundered:

    “A new peril for candidates fighting the marginal Hornsey constituency emerged this week with news that some of their supporters who indulge in witchcraft may switch their votes to the ‘Wicca Workers Party’ in the General Election. David Farrant, who lives in Muswell Hill Road, is fighting under the slogan ‘Wiccans Awake’.”

    See Hornsey Journal article here: http://tinyurl.com/2wazquc

    Farrant became more confident and published a letter in the Hornsey Journal, 21 July 1978, which stated:

    “It is not my intention to use your letter columns to promulgate the views of the Wicca Workers Party or to become involved in futile argument with any of your readers, but having seen the opinions expressed in the letter columns of the Journal, I feel that I should set the record straight. In fact, the WWP is a serious political party and has growing support from people all over the country; including other political groups with whom we are now amalgamated.”

    See crucial admission in Farrant’s letter here: http://tinyurl.com/2whhjjo

    John Pope continued with his Neo-Nazi associations, and more recently published a piece in the journal of the south-western branch of the National Front, an organisation with overtly Neo-Nazi views. He has belonged to survivalist groups and has always managed to maintain contact with some of the most extreme movements to have existed on the far right. David Farrant has a history of association with people with Neo-Nazi ideology. He connects, for example, to names such as Philippe Welte and Jean-Paul Bourre, two Frenchman who greatly admired Hitler at the time Farrant was in collaboration with them in the 1980s. Farrant’s self-published pamphlet Beyond the Highgate Vampire includes a photograph of Jean-Paul Bourre whom he describes in the caption beneath as “a leading Satanist attempting to invoke the Devil.” What Farrant fails to mention is his close friendship and collaboration over many years with Bourre. There are others with whom David Farrant has been associated who have far right connections. Kenneth Frewin, for example, a National Front supporter, acted as Farrant’s “minder” during the ’70s and ’80s and allowed his council flat address to be used for hoaxed letters written by Farrant to newspapers. Frewin also collaborated in some of Farrant’s publicity stunts, on one occasion adopting the pseudonym “Kenny French.” The journalist Frank Thorne is nowadays unemployed and resides in Sydney, Australia.

    Farrant’s Wicca Worker’s Party poster can be viewed at this link:

    http://tinyurl.com/2vq9n52

    Compare a section of the WWP poster with a section of a League of Imperial Fascists’ poster at this link:

    http://tinyurl.com/37y9lxp

  64. Vampire Research Society says:

    Re: Spirit Of The Greenwood by Barbara Green
    “If, as you state, [Bishop] Manchester wants nothing to do with David Farrant( and myself) as you claim why are you busybodying yourselves writing all this stuff about him, which in all fairness, and in the interests of free speech in this country, David is entitled to refute if he feels it is untrue or mirespresentative. … Will you stop writing all this, lets face it, tosh about David, and myself?” – Barbara Green

    Can’t you see that it is your perpetual falsehoods and fabricated allegations against Bishop Seán Manchester which are being refuted by me with counter claims that, at least, are resourced to evidence in the public annals? You and your sick sidekick Farrant are merely responding to my refutations with further libel. If neither of you had launched into personal attacks against the man you are so obviously obsessed with there would be no need for me or anyone else to refute anything.

    My corrections and counter responses are not for your benefit. I am aware that you take no notice of anything outside your agenda to wage a vendetta against the bishop. Other people are able to read your defamation and it is for their benefit that these refutations and rebuttals appear.

  65. DavidFarrant says:

    Re: Spirit Of The Greenwood by Barbara Green
    Considering it was you, yourself who wrote that poster, ‘anonymous’ (in the presence of a witness I might add) it should hardly surprise us that you have such an intimate knowledge of it.

    You WERE a member of the National Front Party in 1970 and were actively canvassing for them at the General Election in June of that year. At this time, you were also employed as a milkman in Holloway.

    My remark was not ‘libellous’ as you put it, because it is true.

    David Farrant, President, BPOS

  66. DavidFarrant says:

    Re: Spirit Of The Greenwood by Barbara Green
    PS Just out of interest, ‘anonymous’, how can you say this is a libellous statement, when I was only talking to yourself without saying who it was?!
    Further proof of your true identity – if indeed, any was needed!

    David Farrant, President, BPOS

  67. greenwych says:

    Re: Spirit Of The Greenwood by Barbara Green
    My worth–he protesteth too much, write a million words, and doesnt answer oen question.!

    If Bishop Manchester wants nothing to do with David, why are you lot “Vampire Research Party” busybodying and interfering on his behalf.

    Also how come you have so much info at your fingertips to copy and paste. Frankly I didnt bother reading your last overkill post, I feared I would die of boredom in the process.

    Stop stoking the fires of I will report you to Bishop Manchester for winding David up and prolonging the feud which the dear Bishop–mops his brow–wanteth no more do do with!

    greenwych

  68. Vampire Research Society says:

    Re: Spirit Of The Greenwood by Barbara Green
    When you post comments on the internet you are not addressing just one person. You are addressing everyone who might have read the cause of the comment or replies to comments. It is a matter of refuting published libel.

    Bishop Manchester has never been a member of the NF and invites anyone, journalists included, to trawl through the NF records. Nothing will be found to indicate he was a member of indeed canvassed for them. The same cannot be said for David Farrant who transferred any potential support he would have received when he attempted to stand as a WWP candidate in 1978 to the NF. On 21 July 1978, Farrant wrote in the Hornsey Journal: “I feel that I should set the record straight. In fact, the WWP is a serious political party and has growing support from people all over the country; including other political groups with whom we are now amalgamated.” See his published words here: http://tinyurl.com/2whhjjo What I want Farrant to do is identify who those “other political groups” with whom he became amalgamated are? I happen to believe one was the NF and that another was the LIF. Farrant surrounded himself with people who had extreme right-wing views, eg John Pope, Kenny Frewin, Philippe Welte and Jean-Paul Bourre; all of whom greatly admired Hitler.

    Farrant’s comments most certianly are libellous because he cannot substantiate them with any evidence (because no evidence exists) and when defamatory statements are published the burden of proof is on the person making the allegation.

    Farrant’s posters were designed by Farrant and nobody else. He alone had them privately printed and distributed. There will be found no evidence to the contrary.

    Tony Hill was the only person (connected to any of this) who was a milkman. In 1970 Bishop Manchester was a professional photographer as confirmed on the front page of the Hampstead & Highgate Express, 27 February 1970. He had run his own photographic studio throughout the previous decade in which Hill had briefly worked part-time some years earlier.

    Barbara Green admits she doesn’t read my responses yet claims they answer nothing. A truly remarkable accomplishment!

  69. Ian Topham says:

    Re: Spirit Of The Greenwood by Barbara Green
    I am sorry but you have alll gone totally off topic here.  What has any of thi sto to did Barbara Green’s book?  Nothing.  If you are not addressing the topic in hand then these posts should be going up in new forum topics.  

  70. Vampire Research Society says:

    Re: Spirit Of The Greenwood by Barbara Green
    You must ask David Farrant that question because he has chosen to introduce all manner of irrelevant matter in the form of defamatory allegations made against the founder of the Vampire Research Society onto this thread. If Farrant is permitted to post libellous falsehood about the VRS and its founding president, surely a rebuttal is due?

    Farrant’s allegation about the NF is so serious it required a full and expansive refutation. He conveniently overlooks the fact that his close friend and “minder” Kenny Frewin was a fully paid-up member of the NF at the time they both knew each other back in the previous century.

    The other allegation made by Farrant about an 8mm film that only exists in his imagination and how and when he met the VRS founder also deserved a comprehensive explanation and rebuttal; especially as he links his claim about the film to images in a bestselling non-fiction book.

    Had Farrant not raised these and other irrelevant topics on this thread (ostensibly about Robin Hood) and had his friend Barbara Green not done the same, there would have been no need whatsoever for me to refute anything. But they did bring their vendetta onto this thread. And, therefore, I felt obliged to respond to set the record straight. My original post on this thread kept to the topic, but it was not long before Barbara Green was finding fault and making her usual nasty comments about the VRS founder.

    I have already stated that the Vampire Research Society has made its case and therefore rests its case on the thread for comments about Farrant’s Highgate Vampire article. But will Farrant leave it at that? He just keeps posting what he considers to be provocative comments which are unrelated to his article in the hope that he can continue to fuel his hate campaign against the man who has become his archnemesis.

  71. DavidFarrant says:

    Re: Spirit Of The Greenwood by Barbara Green
    You have already been told. ‘anonymous’ that these issues are not in the least bit relevant to this thread which is really about Barbara’s "Spirit of the Greenwood" book.
    You seem to be doing what you frequently try and do on numerous messgae boards and Forums: clutter these with your own misconceptions most of which are totally irrelevant to the matters in hand.
    On the "The Highgate Vampire – How It all Began" thread, I have asked you directly about the other version regarding the staking of the Highgate ‘vampire’ and its disciple. ‘Lusia’.
    Perhaps you could now go back and tell us if I have got any of the facts wrong?
    Thanks ‘anonymous’.

    David Farrant, President, BPOS

  72. Vampire Research Society says:

    Re: Spirit Of The Greenwood by Barbara Green
    I have not been “told” personally. Everyone posting has been told. Why does Farrant always think he’s the exception to any rule? And it is Farrant who has raised irrelevant matter on this thread. All I have done is refute his libellous claims which we have heard a hundred times before.

    Now, regarding the other thread (belonging to Farrant’s Highgate Vampire article) what part of “And there the Vampire Research Society rests its case” doesn’t he understand? This was posted two days ago following the suggestion of moving the debate elsewhere by someone else, and Farrant chose to ignore it; preferring instead to continue with his provocative and defamatory remarks.

    Farrant is playing his usual game of telling someone who has rumbled him what they have been doing elsewhere on the internet. First, he’s wrong. Second, it’s irrelevant to the issues being discussed here. Third, he can’t answer anything put to him and will make any excuse as to why the questioner is not deserving of an answer from him.

    I am not here to play silly games with Farrant. If he has issues with the author of The Highgate Vampire (British Occult Society, 1985; Gothic Press, 1991) let him take them up with the founding president of the Vampire Research Society on his questions and answers blog. I am not here to argue about some problem Farrant has with his archnemesis.

    I am here to debate Farrant’s version of events. It is Farrant who published his version on this website. Nobody else has done so. Therefore, the discussion should be about Farrant’s claims regarding the case of the Highgate Vampire.

    Farrant claims that he has given his “version of the Highgate Vampire case,” but that is where the problem arises because he has given so many versions of his alleged part in those events forty years ago, and each one contradicts the other. The issue, therefore, is not whether Farrant believe in vampires, but rather why does everything he claim have absolutely no consistency and invariably always fails to add up? It’s just one contradiction after another. Everyone else can see it, but apparently not him. Years of consuming copious amounts of alcohol can have this effect, but why should the rest of us have to suffer these ill effects through his anti-social behaviour, eg sending malicious mail to anyone thought to be associated with his archnemesis, publishing libellous abuse on the internet every day of his life, stealing copyright protected images and publishing them with false attributions in his self-produced pamphlets as part of a longstanding hate campaign etc?

    Farrant has not produced a single witness to back up anything he has claimed. Not one person has come forward.

    He has produced no members for his non-existant “BPOS.”

    His alleged sightings of the phenomenon at Highgate Cemetery changed in appearance down the years. Even the number of occasions he supposedly witnessed it forty years ago altered from three to two to one sighting!

    Farrant employed solely Christian items for self-protection, but later claimed to have been a practitioner of witchcraft at the time he was entering the graveyard in 1969-1970. His wife, under oath, denied he was involved in witchcraft and the occult. She stated Farrant’s “silly games” in Highgate Cemetery were for “a bit of a laugh and a joke.”

    http://tinyurl.com/32ql66c

    Tony Hill openly admits that he colluded with Farrant during early 1970 to hoax a ghost story in order to dupe the press and public alike. Hill secretly tape-recorded conversations with Farrant at his home. These recordings confirm beyond all doubt that Farrant’s intention was to execute a hoax. Fraudulent letters were sent to the Hampstead & Highgate Express, 13 February 1970, using the names and addresses of Farrant’s friends Audrey Connely and Kenny Frewin. Their names appear in Farrant’s article “How It All Began.” Farrant actually wrote those letters in order to give his hoax some credibility. He merely used the names and addresses of friends with their consent. He also used the address of Nava Grunberg in Hampstead Lane, but changed her name because she didn’t want it to be published.

    http://tinyurl.com/346ovea

    http://tinyurl.com/32p3w9z

    Farrant’s face is clearly covered in flour in the photographs at the two links above. He is trying to make himself look like a ghost. Hill says this was Farrant’s attempt to dupe passers-by in Swains Lane by convincing them a ghost haunted the cemetery. The pictures are taken just inside Highgate Cemetery in early 1970. Any passers-by would probably have died of laughter if they had caught sight of Farrant. One must ponder, are these the “giggles in the graveyard” Farrant’s wife attested in court?

    So, the issue is not one of whether Farrant ever believed in vampires, but rather his obvious attempt to commit a hoax and later to interlope where a serious investigation was already in progress (an investigation initiated by the British Occult Society which had nothing whatsoever to do with Farrant).

  73. DavidFarrant says:

    Re: Spirit Of The Greenwood by Barbara Green
    "I am not here to play silly games with Farrant. If he has issues with the author of The Highgate Vampire (British Occult Society, 1985; Gothic Press, 1991) let him take them up with the founding president of the Vampire Research Society on his questions and answers blog. I am not here to argue about some problem Farrant has with his archnemesis".

    You ARE playing silly games .’anonymous’  by asking me to address YOURSELF on another Forum that has been created by no-one else but yourself;and everyone knows this.
    You raised these matter here on Barbara’s "Spirit of the Greenwood thread" and are still doing so even after the owner here asked you not to.

    I am certainly not going to play your silly games on Barbara’s thread.

    Now, how about you adressing your ridiculous account of how you staked two vampires, one of which had changed into a ‘diant spider’!

    But adress it on "the Highgate Vampire – How it all Began" thread where it belongs and stop cluttering Barbara’s thread with all your non-sensical comments.

    David Farrant, President, BPOS

  74. Vampire Research Society says:

    Re: Spirit Of The Greenwood by Barbara Green
    The VRS, having raised multifarious questions concerning Farrant’s version of events as contained in his article on this website – and having had all those questions evaded, avoided and ignored by him – stated three days ago on the relevant thread for comments about his claims that it now rests its case.

    What part of “AND THERE THE VAMPIRE RESEARCH SOCIETY RESTS ITS CASE” (as posted three days ago) doesn’t Farrant understand?

  75. Vampire Research Society says:

    Re: Spirit Of The Greenwood by Barbara Green
    As stated on 10/07/2010 at 10:01 on the Highgate Vampire thread, having proffered many questions relevant to the article and its claims (none of which were addressed, much less answered) the Vampire Research Society now rests its case.

  76. DavidFarrant says:

    Re: Spirit Of The Greenwood by Barbara Green
    As I have already pointed out, ‘anonymous’, I have already answered all the trivialities you raise both here, and on multiable other Internet Forums, many of which you have since been banned from.  The ‘Vampire research society’ has no case ‘to rest’, simply because the ‘vampire research society’ only exists as yourself. ‘anonymous’, who, for some warped reason, seems to be obsessed with some personal vendetta against Barbara Green and myself.

    I only answer genuine replies, ‘anonymous’; not personal delusions which only have their roots in your own confused imagination.

    David Farrant, President, British Psychic and Occult Society.

  77. James says:

    Re: Spirit Of The Greenwood by Barbara Green
    Would you please provide links to forums where you have answered all the trivialities raised here?

    I have searched and cannot find any answers.

  78. DavidFarrant says:

    Re: Spirit Of The Greenwood by Barbara Green
    I am not very good at giving links ‘James’, but try starting with this:

    http://baldrycat.blogspot.com/2009/08/farrant-rates-women-of-world.html

    ‘Anonymous’ was writing on this using various fake aliases for himself, one of them being "Demonologist".  He often inter-changes this with "Vampireologist", but it is invariably only himself writing.

    For a more serious discussion you could look on the James Randi under the thread "David Farrant – Psychic Invertigator" going back to 2007.  I can give you the link later if you can’t find it.

    Anyway, have fun on "The Cat’s Miaow"; very entertaining I assure you.  But you’ll need a lot of time to go through it, so be warned!

    For the moment though,

    David Farrant, President, BPOS

  79. DavidFarrant says:

    Re: Spirit Of The Greenwood by Barbara Green
    Also found the link to James Randi, James, just in case you are really interested.  It is . . .

    http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=72719

    Have fun, because this Forum is even longer!

    David Farrant

  80. DavidFarrant says:

    Re: Spirit Of The Greenwood by Barbara Green
    For James

    I should say, sorry James; I did not realise exactly how long the James Randi Forum was, until I glanced at it again this evening to give you the link.

    But please can you  remember, that I did not start this thread.  It was started for me by somebody on the James Randi Forum.  I got drawn into it, and before long, I found myself having to answer a group of highly fanatical people who believed Life  had only been created in a test tube.  I tried to point out, that there had to be some supreme  intelligence above the one who conducted the original experiment, but they all seemed blind to that!.  In other words, ‘James Randiites; are a group of highly conditioned sceptics, who can lsten to nothing else but ‘sceintific reasoning’.  

    Well, I lasted nearly 8 months there in 2007  trying to contradict these arguments; but I fear that they will never be able to see reason!

    But I did try!.  

    At least give me that!  And I explained to them that I did not even believe in ‘blood-sucking vamnpires’!  Or in the claims other self-publisists had made about these!

    David Farrant, President, British Psychc and Occult Society 

     

  81. James says:

    Re: Spirit Of The Greenwood by Barbara Green
    I have painstakingly trawled through the forums at the links you provide and can find nothing which answers questions raised by Vampire Researcher on Mysterious Britain.

    You did say “I have already answered all the trivialities you raise both here, and on multiable other Internet Forums, many of which you have since been banned from.”

    Admittedly, Vampire Researcher did ask a great many questions. Though some of them were pretty basic.

    I still cannot find your answers to any of the points made by Vampire Researcher. To make it easier for all of us, could you possibly repeat your answers on Mysterious Britain?

  82. DavidFarrant says:

    Re: Spirit Of The Greenwood by Barbara Green

    FOR “JAMES”
     
    “I have painstakingly trawled through the forums at the links you provide and can find nothing which answers questions raised by Vampire Researcher on Mysterious Britain.
    You did say "I have already answered all the trivialities you raise both here, and on multiable other Internet Forums, many of which you have since been banned from."
    Admittedly, Vampire Researcher did ask a great many questions. Though some of them were pretty basic.
    I still cannot find your answers to any of the points made by Vampire Researcher. To make it easier for all of us, could you possibly repeat your answers on Mysterious Britain?”
     
    It must be absolutely clear to everyone, ‘Anonymous’ that you are now writing about yourself once again using the alias “James”.
     
    I will give you one more link in which I answered very clearly the accusations about the fake letters sent by ‘myself’ from prison and my original sightings of the phenomenon I originally witnessed at Highgate Cemetery (among other things).
    My answers are all there in detail, and I have no intention of re-answering all your accusations here ‘anonymous’ thus continuing your childish games here.
    Here is the so that everybody can read my answers:
     
     
    Anymore here interested can now go and read my detailed answers to you Sean . . . sorry, I meant to say anonymous!
     
    David Farrant, President, British Psychic and Occult Society
     
     
     
     
  83. James says:

    Re: Spirit Of The Greenwood by Barbara Green
    Oh dear, you are now resorting to the same tactic used against Vampire Researcher, and doubtless others, to deflect questions.

    I am hardly “anonymous” when I post under my own forename.

    Perhaps I missed something, but you are now muddying the waters by side-stepping questions that were asked by offering a link to ones that were not. Your arguments on the link you provide at Arcadia do not begin to address questions already asked by Vampire Researcher on Mysterious Britain.

    Others will see this and quickly come to the conclusion that you have no intention of answering any question which relates to the swathe of irregularites thrown up by the claims you make in your written piece on Mysterious Britain, which, incidentally, I have seen many times elswehere on the Internet.

    I have been nothing but polite and asked out of genuine interest to see if you would at least attempt to answer what others have asked. I was obviously wasting my time.

  84. DavidFarrant says:

    Re: Spirit Of The Greenwood by Barbara Green
    AND THERE CAME A GIANT SPIDER . . .

    You are fooling nobody "James".  You are the same person who has been writing under the banner of ‘vampire research society’ here and whom I refer to as ‘anonymous’, and everybody knows who you really are, believe me.

    I have given details about your confused version about how many times the phenomenon was sighted in that early 1970 period just as I went into details about the fake letters I was alleged to have written from prison.  It is all there on Arcadia on the link I gave yesterday.  I am not answering all your nonsense again.

    Now I have answered your questions, and people can see I have answered them if they want to look;  why do you keep refusing to clarify my query about the staking of the two of two vampires; one in 1973, the other in 1982 (after the latter had changed into a ‘giant spider’.

    I would have thought these points were of far more importance than your confused time sequences of 40 odd years ago.  If these two ‘stakings’ took place as fact, and not as fiction as you have stated elsewhere, why can you not clarify this for us here.

    No more of this . . . "You must ask the person in person, personally", that just doesn’t wash anymore.  I AM asking you directly here and people will note how you continually try to deflect from answering these issues..

    To me, this merely PROVES that these two accounts are fictional; just as it will probably confirm this to other people here as well.

    David Farrant, President, BPOS

  85. greenwych says:

    Re: Spirit Of The Greenwood by Barbara Green
    Hi Guys

    I am back from holiday so please BEAR WITH ME( that infuriating modern saying we all seem to fall victim to!) when I read evrythiny properly–had a quick glance–cooo! dickipoggy

    tat for now

    greenwych

  86. greenwych says:

    Re: Spirit Of The Greenwood by Barbara Green
    Interesting book sbout Highgate—Her fearful symmetry by Audrey Niffenegger

    Its fascinating, as it mentions all the Highgate stuff and vampire hunting in the 1970’s–I am only a third through so will report on it further–haha, I hope a certain person doesnt read it and do a dickipoggy to the author for getting stuff erm “wrong” and not polishing hsi halo–though so far he isnt mentioned by name, its just general references.

    tata greenwych

  87. greenwych says:

    Re: Spirit Of The Greenwood by Barbara Green
    I have received an e mail from someone who has been looking for Robin Hoods Grave in the Kirklees Woods. They ahd a verys trange experience. I am asking this person for permission to recount his story( though I suppose I could tell it without naming names) but hopefully he will let me post up the full tale with his name. It adds to the other strange experiences people have had around that area over the years. Good to knew that there as still some people out there braving Lady Armytage’s gamekeepers!

    tata greenwych

  88. James says:

    Re: Spirit Of The Greenwood by Barbara Green
    I was rather under the impression that Lady Armytage has been dead since April 2008 when her funeral was held.

    Perhaps your witness caught sight of her ladyship haunting the land she once owned?

  89. greenwych says:

    Re: Spirit Of The Greenwood by Barbara Green
    Hmm–thats a thought! I have asked for permission to reprint the story so I will keep you posted!

    greenwych

  90. greenwych says:

    Re: Spirit Of The Greenwood by Barbara Green
    I have permission to publish the story, it is on thie link

    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/damiana/?yguid=265458574

    greenwych

  91. James says:

    Re: Spirit Of The Greenwood by Barbara Green
    Why would you need permission to publish a story which identifies nobody by name and is so brief? Without witnesses who are ready to stand by words attributed to them, what is the point of yet one more uncredited anecdote?

    All the account, which you could have easily posted here, states is:

    “My wife and I went up there. It was a Sunday afternoon. We found some sort of ruined building and a fantastic fly agaric mushroom. The atmosphere up there was amazing-so still. We ended up in some almost ravine like ditches surrounded by rhododendron and I had a feeling we were almost there. Then I heard a distant stound [sic], voices and a dog barking. We made it out of there, speeding up as we went with the noises becoming closer like they were in pursuit. It felt like a Vietnam movie as we literally slid down an embankment until we could just see the main road through the trees. We heard them crashing through the bushes behind us and we looked back for the first time. There was a border collie and two middle aged men, one carrying a shovel and one a rifle–I am not kidding! They both ahd [sic] on green sweatshirts with some sort of livery–so I think they were gamekeepers rathr [sic] than poachers. They were less than 50 yards away. I was getting myself prepared for a verbal confrontation–ready to say that all they could do under civil law was leave by the rearest exit which we were already dooing [sic]. Now the really strange bit. They looked straight through us! Even the dog. We would have been perfectly visible where we were standing but it was as if we were invisible. They turned sharply to the left as soon as they had exited the bushes and headed away from us. Freaky. We had both been wearing necklaces called “HARMONIC PROTECTORS”–which supposedly shield you from psychic attack, energy vampirism etc. Wonder if that ahd [sic] anything to do with our excape [sic].”

    I am struggling to find anything “strange” about any of this apart from the wearing of “harmonic protectors” which “supposedly shield you from psychic attack, energy vampirism etc.”

    What are “harmonic protecors” and if they only “supposedly” shield you, why wear them at all? Surely you would wear something which you believed would definitely shield you?

  92. greenwych says:

    Re: Spirit Of The Greenwood by Barbara Green
    Indeed James I could have written the whole thing without permission as long as I did not name names, as it is I have got permission out of courtesy and the name is “Christian”
    I can always ask him to give more details as to his situation and it is up to him whethr he wants the famed hassle that ensues–you cant blame people for not wanting a load of rubbish accusations landing on their doorstep–Christian knows what a pain you know who is.

    This is his account, if you dont have the same feelings, well, its no big deal, we can only report these things as they happen,

    toodlepip

    damiana

  93. James says:

    Re: Spirit Of The Greenwood by Barbara Green
    You did not name names, but you still didn’t post the anecdote on Mysterious Britain.

    What “rubbish accusations” are you referring to?

    Your comments also beg the question of who is “you know who”?

    And who is “Christian”?

    Are you talking about Christiaan Hohenzollern?

  94. greenwych says:

    Re: Spirit Of The Greenwood by Barbara Green
    Christian Hohenzollern–Heavens no no no! ( I once called him the Prussian Officer which didnt go down well–far as I know, according to Brighouse grapevine, he is a mysterious German relative who turned up around 2 years before Lady a’S DEMISE–ALSO AS YOU CAN SEE FROM THE LINK, HE IS A CHUM OF DAVID H) )

    GRR–link doesnt work–will send it next post!

    I cant tell you who Christain is as he has asked me just to give his erm “Christian” name, which IS understandable considering the amount of grief people get is they get involved with this dickipoggy Robin Hoods Grave-Highgate Vampire stuff.

    Please feel free to ask me anything, I assume you Arent a You KNow Who impersonetor

    TATA

  95. greenwych says:

    Re: Spirit Of The Greenwood by Barbara Green
    http://www.brighouseecho.co.uk/news-features/Breakthrough-in-global-war-on.3010340.jp

    NEED I COMMENT?

  96. greenwych says:

    Re: Spirit Of The Greenwood by Barbara Green
    Just to say since Lady A passed on its been completely hush hush about the whole situation, Robin Hoods Grave access, etc. I am not sure if wills are published anymore but sure would love to get a peek of that one.

    Sir Martin, who was the heir by the first wife–who was she?, didnt inherit the estate when Sir John, his dad, died (why?) I think 1984–hopeless on dates, I was his district nurse and on call for emergenicies. Milady–his German second wife- met in war- did inherit the whole lot—and then sold off by auction of contents and then built Barrat style house on the ruins of Kirklees Priory–despite all the paranormal stuff.

    This is only a very brief summary.

    You cant blame local folk for thinking there is something “funny going on” or just feudal privelege–but Tony Robinsons nosepoke was a bit of a ******* not sure where meesrs hohenzoolerns and hepworth are at now

    if you are genuine and not a bishop doppleganger—I will anwer your questions

    tata

  97. greenwych says:

    Re: Spirit Of The Greenwood by Barbara Green
    Well I am sure I don’t know, but there was once a fella called–crikey I have forgotten his name, it will come to me later anyhow he wrote a load of stuff calling a spade a spade on the world wide Robin Hood forum about the whole Kirklees clan–it was shut down in no time, I did print it off–maybe they thought they would be in the will, who knows, but a guy also called David, head gamekeeper, is now seemingly in charge and I have heard nothing about the two boys since.As I said very huish hush, still cap doffing posthumously!

    damiana

  98. greenwych says:

    Re: Spirit Of The Greenwood by Barbara Green
    ps David Norcliffe, head gamekeeper and Ian Gomeche–I think he was sectioned!

    tata damiana

  99. James says:

    Re: Spirit Of The Greenwood by Barbara Green
    Are David Hepworth and Christiaan Hohenzollern “good friends”?

    Just a thought.

  100. James says:

    Re: Spirit Of The Greenwood by Barbara Green
    All that exists online about the “head gamekeeper” at Kirklees Park appear to have been put there by you, which is not the case with the other character you mention.

    Publishing malice against totally innocent people was all in a days work for Gomeche who was a moderator operating under the name “Noncewatch” on the notorious Combat 18 website six years ago before even they rumbled him as being the very thing he claimed to oppose. Gomeche would approach individuals as a “freelance journalist” and talk about doing an exposé on them or their company/organisation, or he may ask them for information on someone else he thought they might know (someone he was obviously targetting). He would then try to probe a lot of personal information out of them. Occasionally people fell for this deception and were used in hate campaigns against others.

    Elsewhere he sometimes employed “IKG Associates Ltd” which is a failed company listed at Companies House as registration number 03455635. He failed to supply accounts to Companies House for his Limited company, so it was summarily dissolved on 2 April 2002 and its assets, including many domain names (especially ikg.co.uk) became the property of the Crown. “IKG Associates Limited” is no longer listed at the Companies House website. He also claimed to have worked for Internet For Business Ltd, an ISP in Aberdeen, Scotland, but when contacted they stated that he has never worked for them, but had compulsively harassed them for some considerable time.

    Gomeche was obsessed with libelling people, homosexuality, males under the age of sixteen, very minor and irrelevant details of the personal lives of the individuals he harassed, closing down peoples web and email accounts.

    Gomeche was taken into custody on 29 July 2005. The complexity and size of the investigation mounted can be gauged by the fact that one case submitted is reported to have over 250,000 emails as supporting evidence. Diagnosed as psychotic, further tests revelead he suffered with bi-polar affective disorder with schizophrenia. The cases against him consequently did not go ahead as section and treatment under the Mental Health Act became the preferred resolution at the time. Hence he was sectioned and his reign of internet terror came to an end.

    I have looked at what still remains avalable to view of the last year or so of his online activity and am surprised to discover that you gave him your support in 2004 and 2005.

  101. James says:

    Re: Spirit Of The Greenwood by Barbara Green
    Prince Carl Christian of Hohenzollern (German: Carl Christian Friedrich Johannes Meinrad Maria Hubertus Edmund Prinz von Hohenzollern) was born on 5 April 1962 and is the eldest child of Prince Johann Georg of Hohenzollern and of his wife Princess Birgitta of Sweden, sister of King Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden.

    Carl Christian was born in Munich, Bavaria, Germany.

    In 1999 Carl Christian married Nicole Helene Neschitsch (born on 22 January 1968 in Munich). Their civil wedding was held 8 July 1999 in Munich; their religious wedding was held 26 July 1999 in Kreuzpullach. They have one child: Prince Nicolas Johann Georg Maria of Hohenzollern (born on 22 November 1999 in Munich).

    Carl Christian lives in Munich. He works for the ARRI Group, a leading world manufacturer and distributor of motion picture studio lighting, projectors, and cameras.

    Are we talking about different Christiaan Hohenzollerns?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Carl_Christian_of_Hohenzollern

  102. greenwych says:

    Re: Spirit Of The Greenwood by Barbara Green
    Well I did not know he was dickipoggy or where he came from in the first place, then he kept phoning up–he was in his manic phase I think and he did say he was going to sort the Kirklees dickipoggy out–well after all the pussyfooting around by other people and false promises, and cap doffing and lies, I did believe him and thought he might crack open the case. I did not know he was anything to do with the other stuff at the time, and you dont always know what to believe anyway as anyone that disagreed or questioned Mr M was labelled as a Satanist or other dickipoggy things.

    I am not sure what Mr Norcliffes official title is other than he seems to run the Kirklees show, both now and in the past, though in the past he was able to say he was just following Lady A’s orders. I just call him the gamekeeper as it more or less covers his role–other than minder,or Granz Vizier, but Mr Hepworth did chivalrously take over some of this several years ago and decided to tell me the error of my ways. I did try to sort something amicable out and had a meeting with him but all the time he was tittle tattling to the bish behind my back–I found a rude and very silly letter about me on Fortean times written to the bish.

    I guess it is all tied up tightly in a posthumous knot and have heard a consortium is now in charge though Lady A’s daughter inherited her house/estate–as was to be expected, I dont know if her stepson Sir Martin was included.

    I have not heard from IG since he was arrested or sectioned or whatevr happened to him, but there have been that many people jumped on this bandwagon and then jumped off again, it is hard to keep track.

    damiana

  103. DavidFarrant says:

    Re: Spirit Of The Greenwood by Barbara Green
    FOR "JAMES"

    I am not in the business of attacking other people ‘James’ who are not here to defend themselves. Apparently you are; not least by linking Barbara’s name to others whose activity you seem to be absolutely familiiar with.  The faanatical group "Combat 18", for example, whom you are known to support; and I mean actively support., "James".
    Barbara is not the least bit interested in polotics "James" (whether far Left or Right); so we have to ask, how is it that you know all these intrinsic details about their activities?

    Your true identity is known to myself "James".  Your irrelevant comments, not in the least bit related to the Robin Hood case, just give further proof as to your real identity.

    Your comments are not only bias and decidedly one-sided. they are (by you’re almost desperate to link Barbara’s name with them by wrongful association), decidedly unChristian.

    Barbara happens to be a genuine Roman Catholic who attends Church regularly, without any serious interest in extreme political groups. 

    The same could not be said of yourself "James" and your marked interest in their activities.

    What church do you happen to attend "James", if you don’t mind my asking?  That’s if you have one to attend, of course.  You did canvass for the Rev. Brian Green once did you not.  You remember, a failed National Front candidate at the General Election in June 1970.  Constituency North Islington – an area I am sure you are familiar with!

    David Farrant, Patron, Yorkshire Robin Hood Society.

  104. James says:

    Re: Spirit Of The Greenwood by Barbara Green
    My “true identity” is known to everyone, not just you, Mr Farrant. I am James. End of story.

    I am no more “familiar” with matters raised by damiana than anyone else who is reasonably proficient with the internet and takes the trouble to search for relevant information.

    I do not attend any church and am of no particular political hue; unlike you, Mr Farrant, who I discover via the internet once had a close association with the Combat 18 moderator Gomeche and even attempted to stand as an extremist candidate yourself in the 1978 General Election. When you were prevented from standing due to your recent criminal history and still being on parole, you translated any potential vote you might have garnered to the National Front, an organisation I have never associated with or supported.

    Quite why you accuse me of being “unchristian” when I have not claimed to be of any religious persuasion is bizarre indeed. It reflects a paranioa on your part which others have not been slow to recognise and chronicle. I refer, of course, to Anthony Hogg, who lists many examples of your paranoid behaviour on his blog.

    Barbara, as you refer to damiana, might not have “any serious interest in extreme political groups” but her being a “genuine Roman Catholic who attends Church regularly” would not preclude her from that if she was of a mind. I refer to the British Roman Catholic Bishop Richard Williamson.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/24/bishop-richard-williamson_n_160598.html

    The fact remains, Mr Farrant, that according to what is available on the internet you have had quite a number of associations down the years with National Front members, including close personal friends, and openly supported Gomeche at a time when he held administrative authority on the infamous Combat 18 website. You have also revealed political ambitions of your own in the past which can only be described as extreme and most definitely anti-Christian. Your friend damiana (Barbara) also supported Gomeche for a while, which she at least does not attempt to deny. This was at a time when everyone knew what Gomeche represented, or appeared to represent. We now know, of course, that he was both a pervert and a madman.

  105. DavidFarrant says:

    Re: Spirit Of The Greenwood by Barbara Green
    Not very convincing, I’m afraid "James".  You just give yourself away by your one-man attacks upon myself (and Barbara) and you are fooling nobody.

    I have never supported far Right wing parties, or far Left one’s for that matter.  YOU on the other hand, were not only a member of the National Front, but can be PROVED to have been a member of it.

    That aside,  let us ask, why are you trying to introduce all this polotocal nonsense on Barbara Green’s site?  What has the man you refer to as ‘Gomeche’ got to do with Robin Hood?

    You seem to have an obsession with ‘attacking’ Barbara Green and myself, citing, as usual, the some cut and pasted material of your one-man band the so-called ‘Vampire Research Society,

    You are fooling no-one Sean (sorry, I mean "James"!).  If you want to see who you really are, I suggest you just take another look in the mirror – with or without your uniform.

    Now, can we go back to Robin Hood and leave your extreme political views out of this?

    David Farrant, Patron, TYRHS

  106. James says:

    Re: Spirit Of The Greenwood by Barbara Green
    If you feel you have “proof,” Mr Farrant, please be my guest and provide it here and now. The fact is that certain allegations have been made against you which have so far not been refuted. For example, do you deny that you have had close friends who were members of the National Front? Kenny Frewin was a very close friend of yours. He was also a fully paid-up member of the National Front. Two Frenchmen who were good friends of yours in the Eighties were both admirers of Hitler. These are the tip of the iceberg.

    Do you also deny that you attempted to stand at the 1978 General Election where your posters called for the banning of Christianity? Your posters displayed Nazi eagles and runes on them. You also stated to your local newspaper that you were in touch with other political parties. It has been alleged by more than one person who knew you at the time that one of the parties you were holding talks with was the National Front. You were known to have much sympathy with their policies, and behind closed doors still do. All this I gleaned from the internet.

    The name of Gomeche was introduced by damiana (Barbara) onto this thread. I then looked up what I could about this Gomeche and posted a response. Had damiana not mentioned Gomeche he would not have been discussed or further mentioned. Is it not a fact and a matter of public record, Mr Farrant, that you openly supported the extremist Gomeche right up until he was certified insane in 2005?

    My own political views, such as they are, would be considered old-style Liberal by most people. Though I reiterate that I don’t really have any strong views.

    Now I have a question for you, Mr Farrant, which is current and was discovered on Anthony Hogg’s DAWWIH blog. Anthony became very concerned when he was told by you that you possessed his private address. He asked how you discovered it and you told him that someone had given it to you.

    To cut a long story short, you allowed Anthony believe it was someone on the Arcadia forum by the name of George, even though you did not to confirm this (if you examine what you said carefully). Your prevaricating style of answering questions skirted around an actual admission.

    This is what Anthony recently posted on his blog:

    “It would’ve taken up too much space to reply to David’s comment on his blog, so I took a shortcut approach. Here’s what I wrote back:

    ‘Hi David,

    Here’s my response to your dodgy reply.

    By the way, could you forward the e-mail in which George revealed my address to you? Just want to establish the truth of your allegation.’

    “Is it enough to just accept David’s word on the matter? After all, the claim’s on his head. Still, it’d be nice to get actual proof of his claim. The ball’s in David’s court, now. Let’s see if he can back up what he said.”

    http://dawwih.blogspot.com/2010/07/stalker-source.html

    All you ended up saying was that you hadn’t claimed the information came in an email, but little else.

    Now, Mr Farrant, do you genuinely have Anthony’s private address or are you once again bluffing? (I presume you haven’t told him details of his address, so you could easily be bluffing).

    The real question, however, is who gave you Anthony’s address in the first place?

    Was it really someone called George?

    If it was George, why would he provide you with such information?

    If it wasn’t George, say so and indicate who it really was, and put poor Anthony out of his misery.

    He thinks you’re stalking him and threatening to use his address if he continues to uncover unwholesome facts about you on his blog. It has been alleged on the internet that this wouldn’t be the first time you’ve published private addresses of people you don’t like, or at least given their addresses to people who would publish them on the internet.

  107. greenwych says:

    Re: Spirit Of The Greenwood by Barbara Green
    Well I should have smelled a rat of course, now James you are in full fig onto David who has kindly supported me from your unpleasant insinuations. Whatever Gomech did or not, and if he was certified insane at least it was diagnosed, which is fairly straight forward with bi -polar but not as easy with sociopathic and psychopathic personality disorders, not to mention NPD. oNE THING FOR SURE, INSANE OR NOT Ian Gomech jolly well hit the nail on the head over what was happening at Kirklees and he put his money where his mouth was and told them so, so whatever else he was guilty of it wasnt being a mincing cap doffing ladyboy,

    tata

    damiana

  108. DavidFarrant says:

    Re: Spirit Of The Greenwood by Barbara Green

    “If you feel you have "proof," Mr Farrant, please be my guest and provide it here and now. The fact is that certain allegations have been made against you which have so far not been refuted. For example, do you deny that you have had close friends who were members of the National Front? Kenny Frewin was a very close friend of yours. He was also a fully paid-up member of the National Front. Two Frenchmen who were good friends of yours in the Eighties were both admirers of Hitler. These are the tip of the iceberg.”
     
    Yes I do have absolute proof Sean (sorry, don’t know why I keep writing “Sean”. meant to say ‘James, of course!) but I’m not going to produce it here as it is totally off topic – like virtually everything else you have just mentioned.
    But to give people some idea of how confused you are, lets just take your point about my friend Kenny Frewin shall we? (And no, he does not mind me mentioning his name, but I don’t think the same would apply to the slurs you are attempting to make about him hiding behind an anonymous name).
    I do not know what Kenny’s political views are, we have never discussed these. But I can tell you that he married a black girl, and has a young son by her, so that rather stands your confused argument on its head, doesn’t it.
    It is totally irrelevant to this thread, but if anybody is in the slightest bit interested, I am not interested in political views. I have never voted in my life and the only political party I have ever been sympathetic to is the Green Party. Unlike yourself, I am just a psychic investigator and do not support material political parties.
    The rest of your post really just waffles on about nothing and, in any event, I will not discuss other people personally here as you keep trying to do. The matter between Anthony and myself is a personal one and has nothing whatsoever to do with yourself. But anybody reading your unfounded allegations, must be wondering how it is you claim to know so much about it. If you want your answer to that, I suggest you go and look in the mirror once again.
    To sum it up, you are trying to introduce totally irrelevant issues here which have no bearing on Robin Hood, or anything else on this thread.
    So the question really is what is YOUR motivation for trying to do this “James”? You appear to be a totally sad little man “James” who has lost all sight of reality. Or maybe its just senile dementia creeping on, so I suppose we should allow for that!
    David Farrant, Patron, YRHS.
     
     
  109. DavidFarrant says:

    Re: Spirit Of The Greenwood by Barbara Green
    For everyone,

    It is no secret that Searchlight and other anti-fascist organisations have an absolutely complete list of members of the National Front up until about 1971.  Kenny Frewin is not on it, but there is one individual whose name would be of interest to readers of this thread.

    By the way, my middle name is James, but I would never imagine that this established my identity beyond all doubt.

    Gareth J. Medway

    (Posted by David Farrant)

  110. James says:

    Re: Spirit Of The Greenwood by Barbara Green
    You say, damiana, that “Ian Gomech [sic] jolly well hit the nail on the head over what was happening at Kirklees and he put his money where his mouth was and told them so, so whatever else he was guilty of it wasnt being a mincing cap doffing ladyboy,” but you fail to identify what he got right about Kirklees if indeed he did “hit the nail on the head.” It’s somewhat ironic to hear you say he wasn’t guilty of being “a mincing cap doffing ladyboy” because, cap-doffing aside, it is widely claimed by others that he had a predilection for young boys under the age of sixteen.

    Just as I predicted, you cannot produce any “proof” about anything you claim, Mr Farrant, because no such “proof” exists.

    You say that Kenny Frewin “does not mind me mentioning his name, but I don’t think the same would apply to the slurs you are attempting to make about him hiding behind an anonymous name” when I have said nothing of the kind. I have not said that Kenny Frewin hid behind an anonymous name. When you wrote a fraudulent letter using his name and address to your local newspaper (published 13 March 1970) it was in his real name. He did not hide behind a pseudonym and allowed you to use his identity to make a false claim about some non-existent seven-foot ghost hovering at the gates of Highgate Cemetery. That much I have read on another thread on Mysterious Britain. It’s odd you didn’t know Kenny Frewin’s political views because everyone else at the time certainly did, as I am sure you did. Your own views were not so different, but I accept you were not an actual member of a party other than your own WWP. He was a member of the National Front, which made it all the more bizarre when he found a half-caste woman to father a child with, but stranger things have happened and he would not be the first to behave in this hyprocritical manner. Whether he remained an NF member is difficult to know unless he reveals it himself. Anyone who appoints themselves as your personal “bodyguard” has to be seriously screwed up. You used this man to threaten people in the past. Who do you have now?

    You say “if anybody is in the slightest bit interested, I am not interested in political views.” This is a lie. You attempted to stand as a parliamentary candidate for the Wicca Workers Party in 1978 and your political views were covered in the press. You even admitted in a published letter to your local newspaper (Hornsey Journal) that you were in contact with other political parties. Your posters, among other things, called for the banning of Christianity and it being replaced with witchcraft. There was nothing “green” about any of your stated policies. What your chum Gareth Medway implies about “Searchlight and other anti-fascist organisations” is also a blatant lie and I invite anyone to put in a search using Searchlight (or any other organisation) to see exactly whose name is on their list and whose is not for the relevant period. Why not publish the result on here with a link to the list?

    I don’t believe your treatement of Anthony Hogg is irrelevant to the issues you have dragged onto this thread. Why do you refuse to answer his questions about the Highgate Vampire case and your obsession with it? Why do you delete his most of his comments (when you’re not editing/censoring them) on your blog? What are you so afraid of that you dare not allow it to be discussed?

    Why can’t you tell Anthony who provided you with his private address? If you are unwilling to do that, why can’t you confirm once and for all whether or not it was Arcadia’s George? You’ve allowed him to believe it was George, but this was Anthony desperately trying to read between the lines (or should that be lies?) because you never really identified George as the person who provided you with the address. All you said was he knew it (as revealed by Anthony himself). What’s the bid deal? Why can’t you answer the man? You were willing to make him feel very insecure by letting him and everyone else on the internet know that you possess his private whereabouts. Or do you? You still might be bluffing, just as you bluff about so much else. I’m all for your bluff being called on this and everything else.

    You accuse me of “senile dementia” when it is you who cannot recall facts and constantly confuse things all the time. It must be taken into consideration, of course, that you are now in your mid-sixties, but even so your memory is either shot to pieces or you are purposely attempting to deceive. I’d say it’s a bit (make that “a lot”) of both.

    And before you play with your predictable joker card, the same one you attempt to play whenever anyone calls you to account, be assured you know absolutely nothing about me (apart from my forename).

    Now when are you going to do the decent thing and put Anthony out of his misery?

  111. greenwych says:

    Re: Spirit Of The Greenwood by Barbara Green
    Ian Gomeche said it was a disgrace that Robin Hood’s Grave , a precious historical monument to a national hero,should be allowed to fall into negelect and only a few favourites allowed to visit the site when it is a national heritage. Robin Hood is a famous Englishman and his grave should be looked after out of respect, but there was a lot of “history” at Kirklees which he knew about but I am not going to publish here. He rang Lady Armytage up and asked her why she would not let people visit,(other than a few favourites and those with megabucks) that is all, but she would not give him an answer. Then he put a post on the World Wide Robin Hood Society forum which spelled it out, I still have a copy, but it was immediately removed–wheels within wheels. The WWRHS have always refused to coincide with the Yorkshire Robin Hood Society anyway.Old miseries with their commeicial Robin Hood frolics, to make money.Thats why.

    I don’t know anything about IG is or isnt–I always tend to be wary of what the anomymous “others” have to say, I have had a lot of ludicrous a ccusations made against me by the “others” who the person, a certain bishop under various nom de plumes- has stated on message boards as facts, when their so called information he has come across by “others” who are never identified. Recently he stated, or someone posing as him, that “others” had said I was sacked from my job, which was downright nonsence, but he insisted he had heard this from “others” but would never give a link–so there wasnt a link as he always gives links willy nilly–so it was a load of bosh–he may have heard a garbled version from a former friend of mine and David , as she has a tendency to get her wires crossed,not to mention swapping allegainces, all the same he had no reason to post such a thing up true or otherwise!

    Well, as you say, Mr G may be a mincing ladyboy or whatever, but he certainly aint a capdoffer, so the description still applies to those who a re,

    tata damiana

  112. James says:

    Re: Spirit Of The Greenwood by Barbara Green
    Do you think Gomeche might have been saying what you wanted to hear to include your support for his vendetta (recognising that you were and still are a supporter of Mr Farrant’s vendetta) against someone he was cyberstalking and harassing? Gomeche hadn’t shown any interest in Robin Hood before coming across you, but probably did notice how many comments you’ve posted over the years against the bishop who you are still making accusations against (just like Gomeche did on the internet and would have faced prosecution if had not been pronounced mentally unfit).

    Where is the evidence to support your otherwise libellous claim that “a certain bishop [operates] under various nom de plumes.” This sounds like something Mr Farrant might say to justify his constant refusal to answer questions by accusing those who call him to account of being the bishop.

    You allege “recently he stated, or someone posing as him, that others had said …” something or the other about your job. Which was it? The bishop or someone else? If someone was “posing” as him did they say these things in their own right, or did they say it in his name? You have to be very careful when throwing accusations about that are so vaguely attributed. Gomeche discovered this to his cost.

    You seem unusually preoccupied with this bishop, as does Mr Farrant, and I rather suspect that this what is at the heart of the matter. You appear to have the man judged and pronounced guilty without him even knowing, which is against the rules of your church if, as Mr Farrant claims, you are a “genuine Roman Catholic who regularly attends church.” You have not confirmed or denied this.

    All I have read on various forums is you passing judgement all the time on “a certain bishop.” Mr Farrant does the same, but he at least cannot be accused of belonging to a religion which forbids judging others in the way you do.

  113. greenwych says:

    Re: Spirit Of The Greenwood by Barbara Green
    Being a Christian does not forbid judging others, after all we have to make judgements every day unless we are zombies—–and if I did “judge” , well someone “who dares not say its name” is forever judging people in true Judge Jeffreys style and describing them as Satanists, miscreants,hysterics, sacked nhs employees,borderline personality disorders, wild neurotic women and so on and so forth. If ever I needed to I could rake all this rubbish out of my files but being a very busy person who has more to do with my time other than being “preoccupied” with a certain bishop, not to mention being accused–by him or his 40,000 strong fan club( real or imagined) of conducting a hate campaign against the good reverend because I asked a few awkward questions which he declined to answer—

    Please assure the good rev than I bear him no ill will whatsoever despite all the naughty allegations he–or his loyal friends and supporters writing in his name–have levelled against me.

    Pleased be assured I have no vendettas against anyone, though have much cause to complain about a handful of people—who doesnt have a few thorns in their flesh—but as for the bish he has always been the one who has accused me of all manner of dickipoggyness since I mentioned David’s name in Secrets of the Grave–and before you get going, I asked the bish several times before publication and sent him a ms, for his opinion which was utterly negative and rather nasty–why–for telling the truth of the Robin Hood story at Kirklees–and wishing to include his valuable contribution which, at the end of the day, he had written himself and now declared was dafamation of his character!!!!!!????

    Before you remind me, Chrissie Demant sent me her illustrations during this situation–I had never asked her for dickipogggy drawings of the bish, but by the time he had finished threatening me over nothing other than publishing his own words–and the few lines about David—I accepted her drawings which she had kindly done for no fee either–and she is a very talented artist-you ask her why she wanted to draw dickipoggy drawings of the bishop!

    tata damiana

  114. DavidFarrant says:

    Re: Spirit Of The Greenwood by Barbara Green

    “He [Kenny Frewin] was a member of the National Front, which made it all the more bizarre when he found a half-caste woman to father a child with, but stranger things have happened and he would not be the first to behave in this hyprocritical manner.”
     
    This is just another example of you totally distorting the facts, “James”, and completely off topic as usual.
    I met the parents of Kenny’s wife on many occasions and can assure you they were full-blooded black people. In fact, her mother was the late blues singer whose stage name was Billy Holiday. So wrong again as usual, “James”.
     
    You are still way off topic when you give your personal version of the occasion (1978) when I attempted to stand for Parliament under the “Wicca Workers Party”.
    It is true that I tried. I even paid the deposit (some £300 then I believe), but the authorities later found out who I was (although I gave my real name) and that I had a prison record, and I was disallowed and my deposit returned. It is NOTtrue that I ‘advised my followers to vote National Front instead – this is yet another of your concocted lies, “James”.
     
    I challenge you here to give a link or reference to where I was supposed to have said this. You will not be able to do so simply because it is untrue.
     
    It is also a lie (and you know it) that one of the policies of the WWP was to ‘ban Christianity’.
     
    When I was in prison, the authorities refused to register me as a Wiccan. Accordingly, one of the WWP’s policies was to get Wicca recognized as a state religion. There was no mention of ‘banning Christianity’. You seem to be a person with a very twisted mind, “James”, so is it really possible to believe anything else you say?
     
    More of the WWP’s policies was a gradual reversion towards using solar energy, the end to the ritual slaughter of livestock, and a bid to legalise state brothels.
     
    Perhaps you could tell us where there is the slightest resemblance to NF policies in that?
     
    No, on second thoughts don’t. You’ve gone far enough off topic as it is!
     
    David Farrant, President, BPOS
    “He [Kenny Frewin] was a member of the National Front, which made it all the more bizarre when he found a half-caste woman to father a child with, but stranger things have happened and he would not be the first to behave in this hyprocritical manner.”
     
    This is just another example of you totally distorting the facts, “James”, and completely off topic as usual.
    I met the parents of Kenny’s wife on many occasions and can assure you they were full-blooded black people. In fact, her mother was the late blues singer whose stage name was Billy Holiday. So wrong again as usual, “James”.
     
    You are still way off topic when you give your personal version of the occasion (1978) when I attempted to stand for Parliament under the “Wicca Workers Party”.
    It is true that I tried. I even paid the deposit (some £300 then I believe), but the authorities later found out who I was (although I gave my real name) and that I had a prison record, and I was disallowed and my deposit returned. It is NOTtrue that I ‘advised my followers to vote National Front instead – this is yet another of your concocted lies, “James”.
     
    I challenge you here to give a link or reference to where I was supposed to have said this. You will not be able to do so simply because it is untrue.
     
    It is also a lie (and you know it) that one of the policies of the WWP was to ‘ban Christianity’.
     
    When I was in prison, the authorities refused to register me as a Wiccan. Accordingly, one of the WWP’s policies was to get Wicca recognized as a state religion. There was no mention of ‘banning Christianity’. You seem to be a person with a very twisted mind, “James”, so is it really possible to believe anything else you say?
     
    More of the WWP’s policies was a gradual reversion towards using solar energy, the end to the ritual slaughter of livestock, and a bid to legalise state brothels.
     
    Perhaps you could tell us where there is the slightest resemblance to NF policies in that?
     
    No, on second thoughts don’t. You’ve gone far enough off topic as it is!
     
    David Farrant, President, BPOS
    “He [Kenny Frewin] was a member of the National Front, which made it all the more bizarre when he found a half-caste woman to father a child with, but stranger things have happened and he would not be the first to behave in this hyprocritical manner.”
     
    This is just another example of you totally distorting the facts, “James”, and completely off topic as usual.
    I met the parents of Kenny’s wife on many occasions and can assure you they were full-blooded black people. In fact, her mother was the late blues singer whose stage name was Billy Holiday. So wrong again as usual, “James”.
     
    You are still way off topic when you give your personal version of the occasion (1978) when I attempted to stand for Parliament under the “Wicca Workers Party”.
    It is true that I tried. I even paid the deposit (some £300 then I believe), but the authorities later found out who I was (although I gave my real name) and that I had a prison record, and I was disallowed and my deposit returned. It is NOTtrue that I ‘advised my followers to vote National Front instead – this is yet another of your concocted lies, “James”.
     
    I challenge you here to give a link or reference to where I was supposed to have said this. You will not be able to do so simply because it is untrue.
     
    It is also a lie (and you know it) that one of the policies of the WWP was to ‘ban Christianity’.
     
    When I was in prison, the authorities refused to register me as a Wiccan. Accordingly, one of the WWP’s policies was to get Wicca recognized as a state religion. There was no mention of ‘banning Christianity’. You seem to be a person with a very twisted mind, “James”, so is it really possible to believe anything else you say?
     
    More of the WWP’s policies was a gradual reversion towards using solar energy, the end to the ritual slaughter of livestock, and a bid to legalise state brothels.
     
    Perhaps you could tell us where there is the slightest resemblance to NF policies in that?
     
    No, on second thoughts don’t. You’ve gone far enough off topic as it is!
     
    David Farrant, President, BPOS
     
  115. greenwych says:

    Re: Spirit Of The Greenwood by Barbara Green
    I beg leave to object to James–or whoever he might be–but it is repeated incessantly in identical format, the suggestion, or actually accusation, that I have a “vendetta against the bishop”.(The same applies to David, Iam sure he will agree) This is repeated on every occasion when I seek to defend myself from the outrageous and untrue accusations that have been thrown at me over the years, by either the bishop or one of his multitude of “supporters” –James being the present incarnation–who all sing from exactly the same hymn sheet( they must have psychic powers as they all say the bishop knows nothing about their valiant efforts on his behalf and he never reads what theyw rite, yets trangely they all manage to write the same thing and marvellously know every detail of the whole dickipoggy situation!)They ignore any issues I have raised and just thunder back that I have a vendetta–that is their only asnwer, apart from lobbing a few more accusations and insults into the conversation! Its like dickipoggy politician do to wriggle out of award corners, it is easy to spot the method in the madness!

    Can I please point out that if someone seeks to defend themselves against an untrue sstatement made about his or herself on a public message board, this is NOT conducting a vendetta.There seems to a rule which says the bishop must never be questioned, challenged or, perish the thought-said to be wrong! If you dare do so then you are conduction a “hate campaign” and a “vendetta”. To be so totalitarian is being a dictator, and I am sure the good bishop is neither.He just doesnt like critisism, but boy, can he dole it out!
    My friend said the vampire–if it existed at all–would be laughing its socks off by now, and he kindly sent some healing and light thoughts out to the victims of this dark sludgy mess.

    The bishop–albeit by some mysterious means in which he knows eveything that is going on despite never looking at these message boards which is beneath his dignity–loses no time in defending his name over perceived wrongful statements against himself–so has he got a VENDETTA?

    Have some sense of proportion and common sense and at least, James, David and I are honest about our contributions, though as ssomeone has advised me to not waste my time bothering as it is getting swallowed up in the “psychic sludge”–a very apt description—churned up by what, at the end of the day, was a load of nonsence about a non-existence vampire nearly 40 years ago.

    Perhaps it is time to say bye bye bish, good night, God bless and hope the vampires don’t bite!

    damiana

  116. James says:

    Re: Spirit Of The Greenwood by Barbara Green
    You say, damiana, “being a Christian does not forbid judging others” when Matthew 7: 1 clearly states: “Do not judge, or you too will be judged.”

    You also claim “someone who dares not say its nam [sic] is forever judging people in true Judge Jeffreys style and describing them as Satanists, miscreants,hysterics, sacked nhs employees,borderline personality disorders, wild neurotic women and so on and so forth” without any evidence to support such a tirade. I have done a pretty thorough search on the internet and can find nothing to back up your allegations. Once again, you are judging another person, and falsely it would appear.

    Your accusations continue with you saying “not to mention being accused–by him or his 40,000 strong fan club( real or imagined) of conducting a hate campaign against the good reverend because I asked a few awkward questions which he declined to answer.” But where are you accused? You offer no evidence to support your allegations. I can find nothing on his blog (dealing with people’s questions) where your “awkward questions” are raised. Why haven’t you put your questions to him directly on his blog for that purpose?

    You also say “I bear him no ill will whatsoever despite all the naughty allegations he–or his loyal friends and supporters writing in his name–have levelled against me,” without so much as a single example that can be found anywhere on the internet. It appears to me that if a (possibly unknown to him) sympathiser says something you don’t like you only blame the bishop and nobody else. This is surely a leaf out of Mr Farrant’s book (or should that be pamphlet)?

    You are suggesting that I ask someone called Chrissie Demant why “she wanted to draw dickipoggy drawings of the bishop” when surely the question should be asked why you would want to publish “dickipoggy drawings” of the bishop at your own expense and then distribute them to the public?

    You proclaim that the bishop’s “multitude of supporters all sing from exactly the same hymn sheet” when it would be very odd indeed if they didn’t. If a number of people recognise something to be so, they will all say the same thing. It is equally true to say that you, damiana, and a handful of others, all sing from Mr Farrant’s songsheet.

    You seem puzzled that “they all manage to write the same thing and marvellously know every detail of the whole dickipoggy situation” when, like me, all anyone has to do is spend a few minutes searching the internet to discover “every detail” of the situation to reach a conclusion not so very far removed from my own. My view is that Mr Farrant is paranoid and, like you, negatively obsessed with the bishop to the point of it occupying every minute of every day of his life.

    You allege “there seems to a rule which says the bishop must never be questioned, challenged or, perish the thought-said to be wrong” which is clearly not true because the internet is full of you doing that very thing on countless forums, message boards and blogs. If what you are saying is defamatory, inaccurate, harassing or just plain abusive that is, of course, wrong and should be addressed.

    You appear to believe that when something is brought to the bishop’s attention which is libellous, insulting, offensive or damaging he should take no action when that is obviously not what you do when anyone says the slightest thing you don’t like. Once again, as you are a self-proclaimed “Roman Catholic who regularly attends church” you should take a leaf out of your own book of rules, namely scripture.

    I have not found Mr Farrant or his hangers-on to be the least bit honest. Mr Farrant only has an appetite for raking up his peverse version of the distant past and refuses to deal with anything current, eg Anthony Hogg, because he has no desire to live in the present or indeed deal with awkward questions. I would go so far as to say that Mr Farrant is probably the most dishonest man I have ever encountered.

  117. James says:

    Re: Spirit Of The Greenwood by Barbara Green
    You claim, Mr Farrant, that you met “the parents of Kenny’s wife on many occasions and can assure you they were full-blooded black people. In fact, her mother was the late blues singer whose stage name was Billy [sic] Holiday.”

    Most people, unlike Mr Farrant, are aware that Billie Holiday, real name Elinore Harris (7 April 1915 – 17 July 1959), was by no means a “full-bloodied black” woman. A copy of her birth certificate in the Baltimore archives lists the father as a Frank DeViese. Her mother was Sadie Fagan. Billie Holiday was of mixed-race via the fact that she was from a family that had been of a continually multi-generational multiracially-mixed ancestry throughout its multiple geneations. Also, both of her parents were members of the largely multiracial ethnic group that is currently referred to by the term of African-American. So, far from being a “full-bloodied black” woman, Billie Holiday was bi-racial and relatively pale. So, wrong again, as usual, Mr Farrant.

    http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Was_billie_holiday_biracial

    You now admit (it would be difficult to deny as it was in the newspapers) that you “attempted to stand for Parliament under the Wicca Workers Party,” which flies in the face of you previously claiming you have never been involved in politics or held any political leanings.

    You claim it is “a lie (and you know it) that one of the policies of the WWP was to ‘ban Christianity’.” The posters you had printed clearly proclaim “End Church Hypocrisy” followed by the statement “Make Wicca State Religion.” When interviewed in the Hornsey Journal by Peter Hounam, you expanded on what your poster implied by confirming that you wanted the “restoration of wicca” so that witchcraft would replace Christianity throughout the United Kingdom. This is also confirmed in a published letter you wrote to the same newspaper where you apparently “set the record straight.”

    In the same published letter, 21 July 1978, you reveal that you were receiving “growing support from other political groups with whom we are now amalgamated.” You refused to identify these groups with which you were now amalgamated to the media. Why would you refuse to reveal such a thing? Those who knew you at the time confirm that one of these groups was the National Front. The same people have confirmed that you translated any potential support you might have received to the NF when you were prevented from standing as a candidate in the 1978 General Election.

    I’m glad you have mentioned that one of your less sinister policies in 1978 was to put an “end to the ritual slaughter of livestock.” Never mind the fact that Jews would have been prevented, rightly or wrongly, from having Kosher meat and poultry ritually slaughtered in the UK, the interesting aspect is the Hornsey Journal, 30 June 1978, adding the words “- in contrast to the days he threatened to sacrifice people’s cats in the cause of the occult.”

    Why, Mr Farrant, did you threaten to sacrifice people’s cats?

  118. DavidFarrant says:

    Re: Spirit Of The Greenwood by Barbara Green
    I am not going to enter into a public arguement with yourself Sean (James) about events that occurred some 32 years ago.  You have stated on many occasions unchallenged on your one-man blogs on the Internet, that I had advised my supporters to ‘vote National Front".
    In my last post I asked you to give a link or reference to back up your claim.  As I said, you would be unable to do so because this statement of yours was untrue.  And so it has been proved to be.

    I do not enter into public arguments with liars Sean.

    Quite apart from this, this is Barbara’s thread and the issues you have been trying to intruduce are totally irrelevant to the Robin Hood case.  All they amount to are personal attacks that you seem obsessed with making against Barbara and myself. Why? Basically because we just don’t believe your ridiculous vampire stories.

    And we both know who you really are, despite your continued protostrations that you are not who you really are and that the ‘bishop’ knows nothing about all this.

    Pull the other one Sean – its got church bells on it!

    David Farrant, President, BPOS

  119. greenwych says:

    Re: Spirit Of The Greenwood by Barbara Green
    You allege “there seems to a rule which says the bishop must never be questioned, challenged or, perish the thought-said to be wrong” which is clearly not true because the internet is full of you doing that very thing on countless forums, message boards and blogs. If what you are saying is defamatory, inaccurate, harassing or just plain abusive that is, of course, wrong and should be addressed.

    AND VICE VERSA–INDEED WRONGFUL ALLEGATIONS ABOUT MYSELF(OR DAVID)WE, JUST LIKE THE BISHOP, AR ENTITLED TO ADDRESS.

    You appear to believe that when something is brought to the bishop’s attention which is libellous, insulting, offensive or damaging—– I THOUGHT NOTHING SHOULD BE BROUGHT TO HIS ATTENTION BY HIS SUPPORTERS–OF WHOM HE KNOWS NOTHING– AS IT IS ALL BENEATH HIS DIGNITY—– he should take no action when that is obviously not what you do when anyone says the slightest thing you don’t like. Once again, as you are a self-proclaimed “Roman Catholic who regularly attends church” you should take a leaf out of your own book of rules, namely scripture.

    HAVE YOU EVER ACTUALLY READ ANY SCRIPTURE JAMES–FROM COVER TO COVER WITH STUDY AND INTERPRETATION AND BASIC UNDERSTANDING , FOR STARTERS– CHRISTIANS ARE EXPECTED TO FIGHT EVIL–THATS WHAT I AM DOING!

    WHAT IS EVIL–WELL THATS ANOTHER ISSUE ENTIRELY–WHO OR WHAT IS EVIL. I KNOW WHAT I THINK, BUT HYPOCRITES COME TOP OF MY LIST–(OTHER THAN CHILD MURDERERS AND ANIMAL CRUELTY)

    BEST

    DAMIANA

  120. James says:

    Re: Spirit Of The Greenwood by Barbara Green
    I do not need to read your book of rules, damiana, from “cover to cover” to know what its fundamental precept is. I have already mentioned Matthew 7: 1 which teaches: “Do not judge, or you too will be judged.” You say that “Christians are expected to fight evil” but you seem unable to refer to your scripture to demonstrate how exactly they are supposed to go about “fighting evil.” I can assure you it is not in the manner you adopt. Christians are told in scripture that the fight is against “evil spirits” and not one another (Ephesians 6: 12).

    You say you are against cruelty to animals. Then you speak of “hyposcrisy” while befriending someone who openly boasted in the media that he sacrificed animals in sinister witchcraft ceremonies. Whether he actually did sacrifice any animals is a moot point, but he obviously approved of ritual sacrifice as the many quotes attributed to him reveal. He also confirmed he had sacrificed cats in a radio interview he gave back in the Seventies. There can be no doubt that others might have been inspired to copy the example he was setting, resulting in them carrying out animal sacrifices. His associate John Pope de Locklsey, who attempted to raise demons with Mr Farrant in December 1973, has gone on record confirming that he sacrificed animals (but not cats) in his own satanic rituals and that Farrant strongly supported the sacrifice of cats. So, isn’t your constant support of Mr Farrant somewhat hypocritcial, damiana, in view of your own stated love of animals?

    Nice to see you’re still employing the joker card, Mr Farrant, to try and avoid showing your hand. You really should wake up and smell the coffee!

    There are people who knew you at the time. They are willing to stand by their statements that you supported the views of the NF and advised people to transfer their vote to the NF when you were disqualified from standing as a WWP candidate in 1978. That is really all there is to say about it.

    How desperately you try and avoid the real issues by totally ignoring awkward questions; introducing puerile allegations of no possible relevance to the discussion at hand. This is pathetic and will be seen as the behaviour of someone exhibiting paranoia and fear.

    Why, Mr Farrant, will you not deal with the issue of Anthony Hogg?

    Why did you tell Anthony that you possessed his private address?

    Why did you allow Anthony believe you were given it from someone who almost certainly did not provide it?

    Why, Mr Farrant, did you threaten to sacrifice people’s cats?

    Why, indeed, did you confirm you had sacrificed cats in interviews you gave to the press and on radio?

    Why did you confirm under oath in the High Court during a libel case you lost against the Daily Express that you sacrificed a cat in Highgate Wood during a witchcraft ceremony?

  121. DavidFarrant says:

    Re: Spirit Of The Greenwood by Barbara Green

    "Why, Mr Farrant, did you threaten to sacrifice people’s cats?"

    I have said on numerous occasions that none of these ‘black magic’ allegations is true including all the ‘sacrificing cats’ stuff.

    So the real question here is, why do you keep repeating such alleged statements when I have already stated that I have never ‘sacrificied a cat’ – or any other animal.

    You have already had a direct answer. and now I have repeated it yet again.

    I do have many tape recordings in my possession, however, of yourself encouraging me to say I do this.  Remember the classic tape . . .  "You know you’re biggest mistake, is to keep saying you’re white . . . People arn’t interested in that; they only  want to hear about the black one’s" (magicians).

    Another important question is, why did you write in the first edition of your self-published book about the Highgate Vampire (1985), that you personally believed that I would never harm any animal  ‘even for the sake of publicity’.  You wrote this long after all the cat sacrificing allegations had been made in the Press.  So again, why did you write this?

    I have already told you that I will not discuss other people personally here; and that includes Anthony and the address business.  I have told you that this business has absolutely nothing to do with yourself; it is between myself and Anthony.

    People may have also noted that you have failed to produce any link or reference here to my alleged statement where you claim I advised my supporters to ‘vote National Front’.  I told you in advance that you would be unable to do so, and you couldn’t.  This just stands as further proof that you are just a malicious liar Sean (sorry, meant "James") – and not even a very good one at that!

    David Farrant, President, BPOS

  122. greenwych says:

    Re: Spirit Of The Greenwood by Barbara Green
    If I thought what you said, or said on Bishop Manchesters behalf –though he knoweth it not of course —was true about sacrificing cats I would strike David off my social list immediately , but the thing is, as Mr Bishop Manchester has accused me of all sorts of dickipoggy doings which I havent done, therefore as a result of also being a victim of these–erm–vendettas—I prefer not to believe the accusations against David for the simple reason I do not belive the accusations against myself–naturally!

    Now I know you are going to go all huffy and puffy and demand links and evidence, which I most certainly have in my printed off stuff from multitudinous message boards–it would accupy me 24/7 to scan things in for you to peruse and then bluster some counter claim.But believe me, my boy, they are there in my lever arch files for posterity, though the chances are when I kick the bucket my daughters will thrown them all in the bin!Still, some fragment of the “Silly Feud” may escape for future generations to ponder over!

    What I suggest you do is let the dear bishop know about your helpfulness and request him to post links up to rubbish me –which will then lead to my replies–and we can all go round on the merry-go-round yet again! We are all OAP’S–why dont we get together and have a laugh at old times?

    Well if the bishops 400000000 get going, situation should be solved in the blink on an eye, save me loads of work for I am sure the bishop has someone in his office who is a computer whiz to help the old and demented—myself and David being as poor as church mice cant afford these boffins

    tata damiana
    /

  123. James says:

    Re: Spirit Of The Greenwood by Barbara Green
    You say, Mr Farrant, that you “have said on numerous occasions that none of these ‘black magic’ allegations is true including all the ‘sacrificing cats’ stuff” and ask “why do you keep repeating such alleged statements when I have already stated that I have never ‘sacrificied a cat’ – or any other animal”?

    The answer is simple, Mr Farrant. On numerous occasions you gave interviews where you threatened to sacrifice cats and boasted on other occasions that you had carried out the evil deed. You even gave an interview on the Today programme (BBC Radio 4) in 1973 where you spoke about your Hallowe’en cat sacrifice which, far from denying, you confirmed took place. There was also an interview with a doctor’s wife, Mrs Annette Wilson, who opposed your publicly stated intention of sacrificing a cat in a black magic ceremony. Moreover, the Hornsey Journal, 28 September 1973, stated on their front page beneath its headline “I Sent Voodoo Dolls – ‘High Priest’ Farrant,” that “Farrant, as the Journal reported, admitted slitting a ‘stray’ cat’s throat at the height of a bizarre ritual before his coven of eight hooded men and a naked High Priestess in Highgate Woods recently.”

    The same newspaper also confirmed that you “sensationally admitted to sending the dolls, with pins through their heads and accompanying poems, in a desperate ‘leave me alone to continue my work’ bid. Inspector John Tressider of the RSPCA received his package direct and Mrs Wilson’s ‘gift’ was sent to Hornsey Journal reporter Roger Simpson for forwarding.”

    On the front page feature of the Hornsey Journal, 28 September 1973, it was reported: “Questioned about the enormous outcry against his work involving ritual slaughter, Farrant stressed that he would not halt sacrificing animals.”

    This link takes you to the original report: http://tinyurl.com/322ja9t

    When you were interviewed in the News of the World, 23 September 1973, by Sue Kentish, we learn:

    “He spoke matter of factly about a ceremony watched by 12 naked, chanting individuals during which he severed a cat’s head with a dagger. All the participants then smeared themselves with blood before indulging in sex. ‘I did not enjoy having to kill the cat, but for one particular part of the ritual it was necessary,’ said Farrant. ‘The sacrifice of a living creature represents the ultimate act in invoking a deity. I do not see animal sacrifice as drastic as people have made it out to be. Thousands of cats are used for medical research. The very livestock we eat have their throats cut. And, at least, I anaesthetised the cat before I had to kill it’. With a shrug of the shoulders he admitted mercislessly pursuing grievances.”

    This link takes you to the original report: http://tinyurl.com/36rfq78

    When you were interviewed in the Hornsey Journal, 31 August 1973, by Roger Simpson, we discover:

    “A cat was sacrificed to a horned god in a macabre night ritual at Highgate Woods during the weekend involving eight hooded coven members and a naked High Priestess who left at the scene a blood-stained carving knife, blood-splattered stockings and offal. … A North London coven later claimed responsibility and the coven’s High Priest, David Farrant, told the Journal in an interview at his Archway Road flat: ‘Hundreds of years ago a naked virgin would have been sacrificed, but obviously we couldn’t do this now so we had to have an animal for the important ritual.’ The victim was a stray cat and Farrant stressed that the animal was anaesthetised for the 45 minutes ritual which culminated in the slitting of the cat’s throat. The ritual slaughter was a part of the festival of the Black Moon – an important date in the witchcraft calendar.”

    This link takes you to the original report: http://tinyurl.com/2wa95oq

    A court report in the Hornsey Journal, 16 November 1979, under the headine, “Ritual sex act and cat sacrifice,” revealed: “Self-styled ‘high priest’ David Farrant told a High Court jury this week of the night he performed a ritual sex act in an attempt to summon up a vampire in Highgate Cemetery. He also admitted that he had taken part in the ‘sacrifice’ of a stray cat in Highgate Wood.”

    This link takes you to the original report: http://tinyurl.com/36rfq78

    And, finally, here is a link to one of many newspaper articles in which you threatened to sacrifice a cat on Hallowe’en. This time it is in the Hornsey Journal, 7 September 1973: http://tinyurl.com/2vsrfdo

    The above is just a small sample of why I asked the question. All you do is deny it ever happened, which is the classic response of a liar. You make no attempt to explain the numerous newspaper interviews you gave where you boasted of sacrificing cats. And what about the recorded interviews you gave? How, for example, do you deny the sound of your own recorded voice on BBC radio confirming for all to hear that you sacrificed cats?

    I note you still insist on trying to fog the issue by introducing your stock-in-trade distraction of confusing me with someone else. It won’t work, Mr Farrant. It is irrelevant and will be seen to be irrelevant. The person you are discussing has addressed your query himself in his published work and responses made elsewhere. I believe it went something along the lines of him not thinking you capable of animal sacrifice at the time of writing the first edition, which in later years he amended to “I just don’t don’t know anymore what he is willing to do of in the pursuit of publicity.” (That is not an exact quote, but it was something that meant the same thing). In other words, your progressively worsening behaviour made him rethink retrospectively what you might have been capable of in the past and he therefore deliberated that he just didn’t know.

    You say, Mr Farrant, that you “will not discuss other people personally here; and that includes Anthony and the address business.” But it was you, Mr Farrant, who brought it to the public’s attention in the first place by publishing on your own blog that you knew Anthony Hogg’s private address and had been given it by a friend. If, as you claim, it is between Anthony and you why did you publish it for all to see on the internet? Do you really expect nobody to comment on what you post on your blog? Anthony Hogg certainly did, and he was furious. All you have done is lead him down a blind alley by allowing him to think the wrong person gave you the address. What a cowardly thing to do!

    I have never said that a link exists to where you transfered your WWP support to the NF. This is your typical way of avoiding an awkward situation. You invent something which has never been said and then shout “I told you so!”

    Both you, Mr Farrant, and your partner in deceit, Gareth Medway, have failed to provide a link to lists of NF members which disprove Kenny Frewin was a member or that anyone else you care to falsely identify as a member was a member. I welcome such “information” and look forward to seeing you produce, as promised, a link to it.

    I might have to wait, however, a very long time.

    While on the topic of the WWP/NF saga, why did you employ Nazi eagles and runes on your election poster?

    http://tinyurl.com/2vq9n52

  124. James says:

    Re: Spirit Of The Greenwood by Barbara Green
    You claim, damiana: “I prefer not to believe the accusations against David [Farrant].”

    Then please explain how you reconcile yourself with him admitting sacrificing a cat in a BBC radio interview given in 1973, and the numerous other interviews he gave in newspapers, including the ones at these links:

    http://tinyurl.com/2vsrfdo

    http://tinyurl.com/322ja9t

    http://tinyurl.com/36rfq78

    http://tinyurl.com/2wa95oq

  125. DavidFarrant says:

    Re: Spirit Of The Greenwood by Barbara Green
    "The above is just a small sample of why I asked the question. All you do is deny it ever happened, which is the classic response of a liar. You make no attempt to explain the numerous newspaper interviews you gave where you boasted of sacrificing cats."

    The real reason you asked the question Sean, (sorry, "James") is because it is just a part of your twisted vendetta that you publicaly portray about myself.  You have been cut n’ pasting this ancient newspaper reports for years by yourself, no-one else is involved.  You have created a series of malicious message boards that you keep giving links to: but again, these have all been created entirely by yourself.

    As you are well aware, it was yourself who was an active member of the National Front Party; a party well-geared in the art of creating malicious properganda. against black races and Jewish people.

    During the course of that WWP campaign (1978), one of the WWP flyers was ‘doctored’ by someone.  A picture of myself holding a machine gun had been inserted in place of the genuine one with an accompanying caption . . . "The future can be yours if you have the guts to fight for it".  The flyer had also been ‘draped’ with a couplw of Nazi Eagles.

    Covering this story, Duncan Campbell for City Limits remarked that ‘a rival of Farrants’ apparently unhappy at the the publicity the WWP election campaign had attracted, had doctored the posters himself and sent these to the Press.

    So much for your distorted version, "James".  You are quite incapable of telling the truth but seem ‘politically mastered’ in twisting it.

    In my book "The Seangate Tapes" all these lies you have been telling here can been exposed for what they are . . . lies. The book gives written extracts from secret tape recordings I made of yourself "James" when you visited me at my flat between 1977 and 1986.

    You can be heard telling myself how essential it was that the Press be made to think that I had ‘sacrificed a cat’ to further a book YOU were writing on myself on my ‘life as a black magician’.  You can also be heard confiding to myself how you stole some human remains from a graveyard with the late comedian Spike Milligen to further some local political campaign upon wich you were then embarked.  You can also be heard boasting how you and your sidekick (Tony Hill) used to illegally enter the catacombs at Kensal Green cemetery and break open coffins there.  You gave me a photoggraph of your ‘partner’ standing in front of a desecrated corpse which I later published in my book "Beyond the Highgate Vampire".  The latter is not some underground publication and is still available from bookshops, through Neilsens and is also available of Amazon.  Your taped description of these incidents (and others) can all be backed up by the actual tapes on which you identify yourself.

    I have already told you, I will not discuss the ‘Anthony incident’ here as it is totally irrelevant to the story you are now trying to make people believe.  That matter is therefore closed.

    Now, try and get back on the Robin Hood topic "James".   Your ravings here just don’t make any sense to myself, and I doubt they do to anybody else.

    david Farrant, President, BPOS

  126. James says:

    Re: Spirit Of The Greenwood by Barbara Green
    The real reason I asked the question, Allan, sorry Robert, sorry Donovan, is because you have never given a straight answer.

    I have created no message boards. I merely post on one.

    I see you want to continue with the NF topic. Very well. Can you confirm that this is your genuine election poster?

    http://tinyurl.com/2vq9n52

    There has been no doctoring. Nothing changed. Nothing altered. Many people saw your posters. The Hornsey Journal have one in their files. It is identical to the one found at the link provided and there are clearly Nazi eagles and runes on that poster. I have not seen any other poster and certainly not the one you describe with a gun.

    The journalist Duncan Campbell was in your pocket, Mr Farrant, and always has been since you agreed to be his informer while also providing him with plenty of free copy about yourself. You are both the best of friends.

    Any tapes you claim to have, Mr Farrant, have been exposed as badly doctored fakes by others over and over again. Do not waste your time and energy trying to convince me they are anything other than one more pathetic attempt to attack the man you are obsessed with. Commenting on your fabricated nonsense about tapes that were cut and spliced very amateurishly would reflect poorly on myself. I therefore won’t do it. How many times do we have to read your repeated copy and pasted allegations? You must have posted the same rubbish on the internet a thousand times!

    The matter of Anthony Hogg is not “closed” because you dragged it into the public domain in the first place. It was you, Mr Farrant, who brought it to everyone’s attention by publishing on your blog that you knew Anthony Hogg’s private address and had been given it by a friend. Why did you publish it for all to see on the internet if you wanted nobody to comment on it? Anthony Hogg certainly saw it. And he commented on it many times. Not that it got him anywhere because all you did was lead him down a blind alley by allowing him to think the wrong person gave you the address. This is the action of a coward.

  127. DavidFarrant says:

    Re: Spirit Of The Greenwood by Barbara Green

    "There has been no doctoring. Nothing changed. Nothing altered. Many people saw your posters. The Hornsey Journal have one in their files. It is identical to the one found at the link provided and there are clearly Nazi eagles and runes on that poster. I have not seen any other poster and certainly not the one you describe with a gun."

    Yes, you DID see it (the complete picture of myself holding a machine gun).  It was published in City Limits.  We discussed this, and I have this on tape as well Sean, sorry "James".

    It was obviously a pathetic attempt to link the WWP campaign with the National Front – and you know very well by whom "James".

    Your point about Anthony is so trivial, I don’t knoe why you keep going on about it.

    We diccussin "Pact with the Devil" and I told him that, even though I knew his address, if he wanted a copy of the book, I was not going to send him one and he’d just have to order a copy from Amazon.

    So what IS your point.  As I have said, this is off topic and in any event, none of your business.

    David Farrant, President, BPOS

  128. James says:

    Re: Spirit Of The Greenwood by Barbara Green
    So you are not just paranoid, but schizophrenic as well.

    I ask whether this http://tinyurl.com/2vq9n52 is your genuine poster, and you completely blanked what is a yes/no answer by babbling on about something I have not seen and know nothing about. Yet again another attempt, Mr Farrant, to distract from the issue at hand when it becomes the slightest bit awkward. Why are you incapable of answering a straight forward question with a straight forward answer?

    Is this http://tinyurl.com/2vq9n52 (click on link) the poster you designed, had printed and circulated in 1978?

    The Anthony Hogg issue is not “trivial”; certainly not in Anthony’s eyes. He didn’t see you mentioning on the internet the fact that you were in possession of his private address as something “trivial” and will still be going on about it when he returns to his DAWWIH blog. You allowed Anthony believe that someone called George gave you his address when this is almost definitely not the case, as demonstrated by the way you prevaricated and never actually confirmed it when Anthony pressed you on the matter. Why indeed would George want to give you Anthony’s address? You must have discovered it by some other means; assuming, that is, you discovered it at all.

    What is interesting is that when he asked you to describe what your latest hatelet was about you refused to tell him, or at least refused to identify who you were obsessively attacking in it despite already putting this item on sale to the public. How do they know what they’re buying?

    You say none of this is my business, but you have put everything I am discussing on the internet, making it everyone’s business. In case you hadn’t noticed, the internet is not private. I know you treat it as a private chat room between you and a couple of others, but that is a delusion. The world (if it chooses) is watching you, Mr Farrant, and following your every move.

  129. DavidFarrant says:

    Re: Spirit Of The Greenwood by Barbara Green
    This matter is still completely off topic and involves events of some 32 years ago.

    I do not see why you are asking questions when you already know the answers yourself.  I guess it can only be to try and mislead people here, James – though I doubt that many would be interested.

    As you know, the WWP had many leaflets and flyers to support its views at the time, many of which were circulated to the public and the Press.  None of these however had Nazi Eagles on them.  The one you are referring to which does Nazi Eagles on it you should be very familiar with, as this was written by yourself, "James".  You wrote this during a vist to my Highgate flat, and my second wife, Colette. was there as a witness.  Remember now?

    The Anthony matter is now closed.  I have already told you why.

    David Farrant, President, BPOS

  130. James says:

    Re: Spirit Of The Greenwood by Barbara Green
    I ask again, is this http://tinyurl.com/2vq9n52 (click on link) the poster you designed, printed and circulated throughout the General Election campaign of 1978?

    It is a simple enough thing to answer yes or no.

    If you deny this is the poster you used in 1978 you will be saying that the one you gave the Hornsey Journal is not the same. But it is. They are identical and the Hornsey Journal still have their one on file. This poster with an orange background contains Nazi eagles and runes. The Hornsey Journal will confirm this to be the case. The one you gave them in 1978 had Nazi eagles and runes. There was no other poster issued by you at that time, and nobody contemporaneous to the period is aware of any other poster.

    The Anthony Hogg issue is not “closed”; certainly not in Anthony’s eyes; and certainly not in my eyes. You were more than willing to publish for all to see that you possessed Anthony’s private address. Who gave you that address?

    You will have to try to understand, Mr Farrant, that on the internet you do not dictate terms to other users, even if you dictate terms to the flunkies who echo your devious propaganda.

    For the record, never mind being in your flat, I have never met you. I don’t think I would want to meet you.

  131. DavidFarrant says:

    Re: Spirit Of The Greenwood by Barbara Green
    I am not answering the same question again, James.

    Here is what I said:

    "The one you are referring to which does Nazi Eagles on it you should be very familiar with, as this was written by yourself, "James".  You wrote this during a vist to my Highgate flat, and my second wife, Colette. was there as a witness.  Remember now?"

    You can hardly blame myself if you cannot read properly.

    The Anthony issue is closed.  If you continue to raise this off topic here, you will just be talking to yourself!

    David  Farrant, President, BPOS 

  132. James says:

    Re: Spirit Of The Greenwood by Barbara Green
    I am not repeating myself again, Mr Farrant.

    Here is what I said:

    I have never met nor communicated with you before the exchange on this forum. Therefore it follows that I have never visited your “Highgate flat” which I believe you last resided in just before you were evicted from it forty-two years ago. You then took up residence in a coal cellar in Archway Road that belonged to someone you colluded to execute a ghost hoax with at the public’s expense. You orchestrated fraudulent letters to your local newspaper from people who were your friends. Two of them are identified by you in your much spammed article on another thread. When you didn’t come clean and admit to the hoax, as agreed with your collaborator (a man called Tony Hill), the other party wanted nothing more to do with you. Meanwhile, you perpetuated your ghost hoax right up to the present day so that you could be the centre of attention, or so you thought, and self-publish meaningless descriptions of a ghost you never saw in the first place.

    I feel, Mr Farrant, it if finally time to come clean.

    I know nothing about your “second wife” and, like most people, am under the impression you live alone in a room belonging to a multi-occupied building in Muswell Hill where a number of people live in similar rooms.

    Is this http://tinyurl.com/2vq9n52 (click on link) the poster you designed, had printed and circulated? You have refused to confirm or deny that the identified orange leaflet/poster is the one (in fact, the only one) you used during your failed attempt to stand as a WWP candidate in the 1978 General Election. This speaks volumes in itself.

    You have also refused to confirm or deny who it was who allegedly provided you with Anthony Hogg’s private home address in Australia. This, too, speaks volumes.

    Deceit appears very much to be your stock-in-trade, Mr Farrant.

  133. DavidFarrant says:

    Re: Spirit Of The Greenwood by Barbara Green
    I am not prepared to discuss anything "James" with somebody who is telling deliberate lies whilst hiding behind an alias, as you are doing.
    You most certainly HAVE met myself, Sean – on numerous occasions.

    You are fully conversant with facts that only you could know.  You know, for example, that it was yourself who draughted that WWP flyer which had on it Nazi Eagles.   When YOU come clean and admit who you realy are, then, and only then, will I answer any questions about any posters that were used to the run up to the 1978 General Election.

    But I will not do it here as your comments and questions are totally off topic  to this thread.  In fact, they are totally irrelevant to any other issues on this paranormal site.

    Your question about Anthony is also totally off topic and that matter remains closed.

    Whatever, I don’t debate with fictitous entities "James".  So you really are just wasting your time.

    David Farrant, President, David Farrant.

  134. James says:

    Re: Spirit Of The Greenwood by Barbara Green
    Yet you seem to deal with non-existent “psychic entities,” don’t you, Mr Farrant?

    You appear very determined, Mr Farrant, to not answer any questions relevant or not to the threads on which you post.

    Instead you prefer to employ tactics which you imagine somehow disqualify you from enetering into a discussion where you honestly address what is being asked.

    If, as you rather absurdly claim, your sworn enemy is reponsible for the organge poster at this http://tinyurl.com/2vq9n52 link, it really throws up more questions than it solves. First, why would someone who opposes you assist your campaign? Second, why would you let him? Third, why would you use his design and no other throughout your brief attempt to stand as a parliamentary candidate in the 1978 General Election on a WWP ticket?

    The other matters you have ignored somewhat contemptuously have not gone away. They linger in the ether waiting to be addressed like the “psychic entity” which never existed that you “witnessed” on, what was it, three occasion, or two occasions, or one occasion, or was it no occasion? I think I’ll back the last option.

    What I would like to know is what you hope to get out of all this, given your penchant for evasion and obfuscation?

  135. DavidFarrant says:

    Re: Spirit Of The Greenwood by Barbara Green

    "You appear very determined, Mr Farrant, to not answer any questions relevant or not to the threads on which you post.

    Instead you prefer to employ tactics which you imagine somehow disqualify you from enetering into a discussion where you honestly address what is being asked."

    You have answered your own question, "James".

    Yes, it does disqualify me from answering questions from yourself; simply because you are an individual pretending not to be yourself.  That’s why.  I would probably refuse to answer from any ‘way off topic questions’ from even genuine members; especially on someelses’ thread..  But I happen to know your real identity "James", so I don’t think anybody will really surprised that I’m not answering YOU.

    David Farrant, President, BPOS

  136. James says:

    Re: Spirit Of The Greenwood by Barbara Green
    I seriously doubt, Mr Farrant, that you have the slightest notion of who I am. It hardly matters given your refusal to those who you do know, eg Anthony Hogg, where the outcome is the same. You just will not answer awkward questions!

    Which brings me back to my previous question. What do you hope to get out of all this, given your penchant for evasion and obfuscation? It all seems pretty pointless to me.

  137. greenwych says:

    Re: Spirit Of The Greenwood by Barbara Green
    What do ypu want to know James–maybe I can help?

  138. DavidFarrant says:

    Re: Spirit Of The Greenwood by Barbara Green
    The point really is "Janes" why you keep trying to introduce off-topic subjects onto Barbara’s thread about Robin Hood, and then expect to be answered about things which have nothing whatsoever with the subject matter.

    What do YOU expect to  expect to gain from doing this all the time, "James"?

    David Farrant, President, BPOS

  139. DavidFarrant says:

    Re: Spirit Of The Greenwood by Barbara Green
    NONE of your questions here to myself have related to the subject of Robin Hood, "James", which is why you have not been answered.

    I agree that this is a pointless exercise, but then you can only expect people to ask just why you’ve been trying to prolong it.

    David Farrant

  140. James says:

    Re: Spirit Of The Greenwood by Barbara Green
    Absolutely nothing, which is apparently what most other people eventually come to expect when dealing with you.

    At first I expected answers to questions which have quite obviously proven too awkward for you to reply to with any degree of honesty. Now I have no expectation of you beyond the transparent game-playing you indulge in all the time.

    I shall not bother for the time being with this fruitless exercise, and shall take rest from the tedium of it.

    So, for the moment, Mr Farrant, I am saying nothing …

    … but only for the moment.

  141. Viking says:

    Re: Spirit Of The Greenwood by Barbara Green
    Best Robin Hood story I ever heard was back in the 1960’s…and many may have also heard it before.
    Robin lay on his bed dying surrounded by his loyal merrymen and Friar Tuck was praying by his bed next to the window that looked out to Sherwood Forest. Robin asks for his trusty longbow and little John…weeping hands it to him. With his last breath Robin cries out “bury me where my arrow lands”…Twang…Then poor Robin died. What will we do now said the Friar to little John…John replies,we must
    obey his dying wish. So the buried him on top of the wardrobe. Richard Greene was the best Robin Hood, used to watch it on TV. Better than all those crappy Hollywood films.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *