Research Materials - UK Help Needed

[Myth Buster]

The problem is one of consistency, not belief

You seem to belive that the fact that Farrant has claimed to hunt vampires is, in your mind, enough evidence to doubt his honesty, or grasp of reality, in relation to other matters (a position in which I am in agreemnt with you), but the fact that Manchester also claims to have hunted vampires does not similarly discredit his version of events?
Why is that?

No, you have misunderstood the point I was trying to reach. Everyone is entitled to believe what they like and should be tolerated provided they do not harm other people in pursuit of their beliefs, do not harm animals in pursuit of their beliefs, and stay within the law whilst doing so.

The issue for me is one of consistency. I have no way of knowing whether Manchester and Farrant have done or experienced what they say they have done and experienced, but what I do know is that what Manchester claimed he did back in the late Sixties and early Seventies he still claims he did. Whereas what Farrant told everyone he did, was filmed doing on television, and stated under oath in court, he now completely denies. Perhaps he finds it all very embarrassing?

Yet the public record shows that there is no consistency in what Farrant is saying today and what he claimed in 1970.

 

[Myth Buster]

Unoriginal and unimaginative

He or one of his multiple personalities was too busy making a jackass of themselves

You are using the very same language, even the same phrases, as those on the board you recently joined where posting abuse about Sean Manchester dominates.

Why not stick to the topic instead of always becoming personally abusive toward one of the parties but not the other?

 

[brodski]

No, you have misunderstood the point I was trying to reach. Everyone is entitled to believe what they like and should be tolerated provided they do not harm other people in pursuit of their beliefs, do not harm animals in pursuit of their beliefs, and stay within the law whilst doing so.

Manchester is peddling his delusions as fact, and that IMHO is harmful.
Whist he is still promoting himself in public as an "expert" on vampires, then he is deserving of public criticism.
every sale of his book is a moral (bout not a legal) fraud.

The issue for me is one of consistency. I have no way of knowing whether Manchester and Farrant have done or experienced what they say they have done and experienced, but what I do know is that what Manchester claimed he did back in the late Sixties and early Seventies he still claims he did. Whereas what Farrant told everyone he did, was filmed doing on television, and stated under oath in court, he now completely denies. Perhaps he finds it all very embarrassing?

Yet the public record shows that there is no consistency in what Farrant is saying today and what he claimed in 1970.

So (you claim) that Manchester has been consistent in his delusions, whilst Ferrant seems to have a shorter attention span but a better imagination?
they are both deluded nuts, the fact that Manchester can't think up a better story after 30 years does nothing to improve his creditability in my eyes. Why?
BECAUSE HE BELIEVES IN VAMPIRES (As does his rival deluded fool). And if farrent finds his past activities embarrassing, I don't blame him. I'd be embarrassed too, but Manchester continues to make money from (and seek publicity for) his wild and wacky fantasies about the undead.
If Manchester (or Farrent) are to be excused the label of liars, it is only because before attempting to delude others, they took great pains to delude themselves.

 

[Miss Whiplash]

You are using the very same language, even the same phrases, as those on the board you recently joined where posting abuse about Sean Manchester dominates.

Why not stick to the topic instead of always becoming personally abusive toward one of the parties but not the other?

Really? What board did I recently join?

The the most recent board I joined was The L Word forum. Are you an L Word fan?

How am I becoming abusive?

 

[brodski]

Really? What board did I recently join?

The the most recent board I joined was The L Word forum. Are you an L Word fan?

How am I becoming abusive?

Given the Fearless Vampire hunter's inability to separate fact from fiction, maybe he does see a connection?

 

[Miss Whiplash]

No, you have misunderstood the point I was trying to reach. Everyone is entitled to believe what they like and should be tolerated provided they do not harm other people in pursuit of their beliefs, do not harm animals in pursuit of their beliefs, and stay within the law whilst doing so.

The issue for me is one of consistency. I have no way of knowing whether Manchester and Farrant have done or experienced what they say they have done and experienced, but what I do know is that what Manchester claimed he did back in the late Sixties and early Seventies he still claims he did. Whereas what Farrant told everyone he did, was filmed doing on television, and stated under oath in court, he now completely denies. Perhaps he finds it all very embarrassing?

Yet the public record shows that there is no consistency in what Farrant is saying today and what he claimed in 1970.

Manchester presenting himself as some legitimate clergyman is the most dangerous part of this delusion in my opinion. You know how people are - any passing kook can slap religion on any woo and people's gullibility goes into overdrive. They see him on National Geographic playing priest and fall for his dog and pony show. Few people stop and research his order and see how transparent it all is. Cults are not harmless.

 

[Miss Whiplash]

Given the Fearless Vampire hunter's inability to separate fact from fiction, maybe he does see a connection?

I guess he'll move on to greener pastures now.

 

[Myth Buster]

Autocephalous Old Catholic Churches are not cults

Manchester presenting himself as some legitimate clergyman is the most dangerous part of this delusion in my opinion. You know how people are - any passing kook can slap religion on any woo and people's gullibility goes into overdrive. They see him on National Geographic playing priest and fall for his dog and pony show. Few people stop and research his order and see how transparent it all is. Cults are not harmless.

You are straying into the area of defamation as Sean Manchester has tested his validity when he made an official complaint against a small radio station who went down that route because they thought that if he was not Roman Catholic he cannot therefore be Catholic. The hearing was chaired by Richard Holloway, a senior bishop in the Church of England. Bishop Holloway upheld Sean Manchester's complaint and declared him to be legally and canonically a genuine Old Catholic Bishop. It was explained that there are Eastern Catholic Churches and Old Catholic Churches as well as the Roman Catholic Church. The producer of the radio station pleaded ignorance and stated that it was never the station's intention to cast any doubt on Sean Manchester's validity as a bishop. They also apologised.

 

[jmontecillo01]

Vampires Hunter's hadnbook

Hi The Vampire,

I thought you might be interested in 1 of Manchester's book called "The Vampires Hunter's Handbook" It had a glowing review.

The review said:

[FONT=verdana,helvetica,arial][SIZE=-1]The back cover photograph,showing Manchester fending off an attack from several of the largest bats on the planet,is almost worth the cover price on its own.[/SIZE][/FONT]

 

[Miss Whiplash]

You are straying into the area of defamation as Sean Manchester has tested his validity when he made an official complaint against a small radio station who went down that route because they thought that if he was not Roman Catholic he cannot therefore be Catholic. The hearing was chaired by Richard Holloway, a senior bishop in the Church of England. Bishop Holloway upheld Sean Manchester's complaint and declared him to be legally and canonically a genuine Old Catholic Bishop. It was explained that there are Eastern Catholic Churches and Old Catholic Churches as well as the Roman Catholic Church. The producer of the radio station pleaded ignorance and stated that it was never the station's intention to cast any doubt on Sean Manchester's validity as a bishop. They also apologised.

And I'm not apologizing. I dislike cults. People how run small, obscure churches, run around in costumes, exorcise people and stake vampires are cults from where I'm standing. Until the bishop can prove some credentials other than his own website, his claim is hearsay.

As a lapsed Catholic convert myself, I find pretend churches offensive. Unless Mr. Manchester can show some independent proof he is a bishop, he's as much a bishop as Jerry Falwell.

 

[Miss Whiplash]

Hi The Vampire,

I thought you might be interested in 1 of Manchester's book called "The Vampires Hunter's Handbook" It had a glowing review.

The review said:

[FONT=verdana,helvetica,arial][SIZE=-1]The back cover photograph,showing Manchester fending off an attack from several of the largest bats on the planet,is almost worth the cover price on its own.[/SIZE][/FONT]

Thanks for that review!

 

[brodski]

You are straying into the area of defamation as Sean Manchester has tested his validity when he made an official complaint against a small radio station who went down that route because they thought that if he was not Roman Catholic he cannot therefore be Catholic. The hearing was chaired by Richard Holloway, a senior bishop in the Church of England. Bishop Holloway upheld Sean Manchester's complaint and declared him to be legally and canonically a genuine Old Catholic Bishop. It was explained that there are Eastern Catholic Churches and Old Catholic Churches as well as the Roman Catholic Church. The producer of the radio station pleaded ignorance and stated that it was never the station's intention to cast any doubt on Sean Manchester's validity as a bishop. They also apologised.

Details of that hearing would be interesting to see, by the sounds of it, it was held in an ecclesiastical court rather than a secular court.
Oh and please stop accusing people on these boards of defamation, libel or slander of Mr Manchester, this board is hosted in the US, posts here are protected by the 1st amendment to the US constitution You seem to have at least some legal knowledge- you should be able to grasp this point.
And as we're talking about legal knowledge I am still interested in hearing your interpretation of the Incitement to Religious Hatred legislation in the UK.

Again for your convenience I will provide you with a link to start from www.opsi.gov.uk
Can I expect clarification on your views on this point of law?
If not, will you apologise to those you accused of committing hate crimes?

 

[Myth Buster]

No need to prove anything if you're real

As a lapsed Catholic convert myself, I find pretend churches offensive. Unless Mr. Manchester can show some independent proof he is a bishop, he's as much a bishop as Jerry Falwell.

If he were to bother to do that for every sceptic and non-believer who demanded it, his credentials would indeed be questionable. He doesn't need to prove himself to you or anyone else for that matter. Just as you have no need to prove whatever you might be to him. However, as already stated, Sean Manchester has tested his validity when he made an official complaint against a small radio station who went down that route because they thought that if he was not Roman Catholic he cannot therefore be Catholic. The hearing was chaired by Richard Holloway, a senior bishop in the Church of England. Bishop Holloway upheld Sean Manchester's complaint and declared him to be legally and canonically a genuine Old Catholic Bishop. It was explained that there are Eastern Catholic Churches and Old Catholic Churches as well as the Roman Catholic Church. The producer of the radio station pleaded ignorance and stated that it was never the station's intention to cast any doubt on Sean Manchester's validity as a bishop. They also apologised.

 

[Myth Buster]

Religious Hatred Act 2006

And as we're talking about legal knowledge I am still interested in hearing your interpretation of the Incitement to Religious Hatred legislation in the UK.
Again for your convenience I will provide you with a link to start from www.opsi.gov.uk Can I expect clarification on your views on this point of law? If not, will you apologise to those you accused of committing hate crimes?

No apology. And, furthermore, I have been asked by Sean Manchester's people to stay off this topic as a complaint is already under consideration within the terms of the Religious Hatred Act 2006, section 1, 29C 1 (http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2006/60001--b.htm).

It would, therefore, be inappropriate to further broach this matter.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

http://froogle.google.com/froogle?q=%22Sean+Manchester%22&btnG=Search&lmode=online&cat0=193&cat=196&lnk=catsugg You can add a local search to that to try to find a copy in an B&M

 

[brodski]

No apology. And, furthermore, I have been asked by Sean Manchester's people to stay off this topic as a complaint is already under consideration within the terms of the Religious Hatred Act 2006, section 1, 29C 1 (http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2006/60001--b.htm).

It would, therefore, be inappropriate to further broach this matter.

It was your accusation, not Sean's, he has not participated on these boards.
back up your vicious allegation or withdraw it.

Firstly the incitement to religious hatred ACT DOES NOT COVER SPEECH OUTSIDE OF THE UK. and secondly in order to breach the act people would have to use threatening language. If you can find threatening language on this forum, and report it, it will be removed as it is in breach of the membership agreement.

Sean Manchester can consider trying to apply a law he doesn't understand to a jurisdiction in which it is not in force all eh likes, it is YOU who has made direct accusations here.

You are showing yourself to be nothing but a bully and a fool, who wishes to close down criticisms of your pet topics with spurious legal threats, much in the same way as Manchester has often been accused of.
You're not frightening anyone. In fact it's would be all rather cute if your baseless allegations where not so vile.

 

[Ducky]

No apology. And, furthermore, I have been asked by Sean Manchester's people to stay off this topic as a complaint is already under consideration within the terms of the Religious Hatred Act 2006, section 1, 29C 1 (http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2006/60001--b.htm).

It would, therefore, be inappropriate to further broach this matter.

I thought you said you have no professional contact aside from some research about Manchester?

And I would love to see Manchester try to have a criminal charge brought against a US citizen for a UK law. It it were not such a nasty accusation to be made, the "Religious Hate Speech" tactic would be laughable.

 

[Timble]

Bishop Holloway upheld Sean Manchester's complaint and declared him to be legally and canonically a genuine Old Catholic Bishop. It was explained that there are Eastern Catholic Churches and Old Catholic Churches as well as the Roman Catholic Church.

Hardly an authoratitive statement from the Archbishop of Canterbury is it?

What evidence have you that the Bishop actually had any knowledge of Manchester beyond his own claims? Perhaps the Bishop was rather too trusting...

Waiting to see those kittens in lawyer's wigs and gowns...

 

[Ducky]

Myth Buster, could you perhaps shed some light on the seemingly incongruous statements of yours quoted below?

I hold no particular brief for any of the active parties.

I am no more connected to Sean Manchester than "The Vampire" is connected to David Farrant.

I was investigating the situation long before the thread on this forum and have had email and snail mail communication with various people from both sides, but not the main protagonists.

If you knew where my field of expertise lay you would better understand why my apparent grasp of the detail seems incredible. But that is privileged information.

No apology. And, furthermore, I have been asked by Sean Manchester's people to stay off this topic as a complaint is already under consideration within the terms of the Religious Hatred Act 2006, section 1, 29C 1 (http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2006/60001--b.htm).

It would, therefore, be inappropriate to further broach this matter.

 

[Mojo]

You are straying into the area of defamation as Sean Manchester has tested his validity when he made an official complaint against a small radio station who went down that route because they thought that if he was not Roman Catholic he cannot therefore be Catholic. The hearing was chaired by Richard Holloway, a senior bishop in the Church of England. Bishop Holloway upheld Sean Manchester's complaint and declared him to be legally and canonically a genuine Old Catholic Bishop. It was explained that there are Eastern Catholic Churches and Old Catholic Churches as well as the Roman Catholic Church. The producer of the radio station pleaded ignorance and stated that it was never the station's intention to cast any doubt on Sean Manchester's validity as a bishop. They also apologised.

Details of that hearing would be interesting to see, by the sounds of it, it was held in an ecclesiastical court rather than a secular court.

I was a bit perplexed about this. Why would a hearing presided over by a Church of England bishop have jurisdiction over disputes involving Catholic churches, "old" or otherwise?

It turns out that Richard Holloway (Bishop of Edinburgh 1996-2000, and therefore a bishop of the Scottish Episcopal Church rather than the C of E) was a member of the Broadcasting Standards Commission (now Ofcom). The fact that he was also a bishop is not relevant to his function in the case. This seems to be a reference to one of two complaints he made to Ofcom in 2002. Each of these complaints was partially upheld. In this one, the commission found:

The Commission notes that Bishop Manchester had understood that the programme was about satanic groups and cults, that his second pre-recorded interview was in addition to this, and that he would not have contributed to a programme exclusively about vampires. The Commission also notes that, as far as 101.4 Angel FM were concerned, the use of Bishop Manchester’s material was in accordance with normal editorial practice – although his initial pre-recorded interview had informed the whole programme, his second one was more than other contributors had offered on the subject of vampires. In the absence of any suggestion of concealment or failure to honour any guarantees regarding the ultimate nature of the programme, the Commission is not satisfied that Bishop Manchester was treated unfairly. It therefore finds no unfairness on this part of the complaint.

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

The other complaint in 2002 relates to an interview conducted by telephone by James Whale, and which found that it had been unfair to address him as "Sean" rather than "Bishop Manchester" because he had been assured before the programme that he would be addressed as "bishop". The Commission also found that as Manchester's contribution to the programme had been by telephone a threat to slap him could not be intended to be taken seriously, and declined to uphold the part of the complaint about Whale's "discourteous and rude comments", because, "in the context of this presenter’s well-known approach and style, [there was] no particular unfairness to Bishop Manchester."

He didn't fare so well in a complaint about a 2004 Channel 4 programme, in which, among other findings:

Ofcom found no unfairness in the programme's implication that Bishop Manchester was one of a number of "1970's wierdos" given the light-hearted nature of the programme and taking into account that the majority of people would not consider vampire hunting to be a normal activity.

The adjudication can be found on page 44 of this pdf document.