"Well, the New Year is nearrly [sic] here, and once the crazy celebrations are out of the way tomorrow, we hope to catch up [...] Unfortunately, as many of you know by now, a certain ‘Bonky person’ took exception to the Truth coming out and tried to suppress the coverage as this didn’t suit his frivolous ‘vampire story[.]’ But it didn’t work and so people will be free to watch the whole film saga in just a few weeks. It appeared the person just got tired of playing with his Hornby train set in his bungalow and wanted to spoil the enjoyment of others,, [sic] not least by releasing photographs of himself stuffing down his displayed Christmas dinner and surrounded by cheap Christmas decorations instead! All photographed for self-publicity and some sympathetic effect, of course! But anyway, life goes on, and we do hope that you can join us all for the New Year, and perhaps take solace in the more serious issues that life has to offer! Happy New Year when this inevitably comes now the day after tomorrow . . . David [Farrant]." (31 December 2015)
It is wondered who Farrant is referring to when he says "we" (obviously he is only speaking about himself)? He certainly doesn't belong to the aristocracy or royalty, which permits this formal usage.
The "Bonky person" in Farrant's perverse lexicon, of course, is meant for Seán Manchester. It's difficult to imagine that in three weeks' time the man using such an infantile term will be seventy!
What Seán Manchester took exception to is Farrant's blatant copyright theft of an image used in a video posted on YouTube. The image was not representing a vampire; rather it was a photographic representation of a ghostly figure. A copy of it was also held by the late Peter Underwood.
The original 35mm negative is held by Seán Manchester and the photograph itself is filed in the British Occult Society archive. Peter Underwood was a member of the British Occult Society. The copyright owner is Seán Manchester and nobody else. The person who is lying over this is Farrant.
Seán Manchester couldn't care less about the remainder of the video; only his copyrighted picture. He was content to just have the few seconds when the stolen image was on screen removed.
How a small number of pictures (showing the celebration of Christmas at his home with his wife) can be construed as "self-publicity" or trying to extract "sympathy" simply beggars the imagination!
Seán Manchester does not reside in a "bungalow" and has never lived in a bungalow in his life. This is bed-sit dwelling Farrant's envy bubbling to the surface yet again; as is his reference to "cheap decorations." Below is a comparison between Farrant's Christmas decorations (this picture is shown under Fair Use, as he raised the issue as criticism and his falsehood is being challenged pictorially) and some of those (there are many more) at Seán Manchester's rambling house over Christmas.
"All photographed for self-publicity and some sympathetic effect," says the arch-publicity-seeker Farrant who by contrast is seen looking utterly miserable and alone with one solitary card in evidence from his son, Jamie, who is obviously not present. Farrant's minimalist decorations, comprising a tiny bit of tinsel, some old lights that have seen better days (minus the tree, of course), and some holly pinched from a nearby wood, present a picture that is beyond pathetic.
ReplyDeleteIf this image isn't for "sympathetic effect," what else is it?
One again, Farrant scores a monumental own goal with a combination of applied malice and his own stupidity.