Sean Manchester - Vampire Hunter

[Lisa Simpson]

By posting on the JREF Forum you agree to abide by and follow the Guidelines and Rules. These include:

1. Be civil and polite.

2. You will not post anything that is considered to be potentially criminal.

3. You will not post a person's private information that is not otherwise publicly available.

Catherine and Barbara have not been civil and polite.

They have posted potentially criminal material which is harassing, threatening and maliciously false. Some of the material they have posted contravenes the UK's Data Protection Act 1998 and the Religious Hatred Act 2006.

They have also posted private information that is not otherwise publicly available, ie the identity of the town where the object of their hatred has a private residence.

As Deputy Admin:

When the rules say "civil and polite" we mean civil and polite to each other. If we meant everyone not a member of this forum as well, we would never be able to talk trash about Sylvia Browne. If Catherine and Barbara have been incivil to other members here or violated any other forum rules, you must use the "report this post button".

 

[Timble]

I wouldn't regard the Sun as any more reliable than the two factions in this occult soap opera...

 

[brodski]

Allegations made about Sean Manchester's religious denomination and standing as an ordained minister within that denomination are in breach of a section of the Religious Hatred Act 2006. Those who make hateful and damaging comments are obliged to prove them if they do not want to fall foul of the law.

Can you quote which section section of the act? You seem pretty definite on this point.
This may be a good starting point for you.
Www.opsi.gov.uk
You may also like to explain how UK legislation extends to the USA.

 

[Miss Whiplash]

Allegations made about Sean Manchester's religious denomination and standing as an ordained minister within that denomination are in breach of a section of the Religious Hatred Act 2006. Those who make hateful and damaging comments are obliged to prove them if they do not want to fall foul of the law. This is certainly the case with libel where the burden of proof is always with the libeller. Most rational and reasonable observers would agree that there is much posted by Catherine and Barbara which is potentially libellous.

Questioning someone's credentials isn't an act of hate, though. Anyone can state they are a bishop of some church. Proving they are a bishop is quite another thing. And the burden of proof will be on the bishop.

 

[Myth Buster]

Investigating the real evidence

By "investigating" do you mean asking Sean Manchester? (And I'm asking since I assume you are connected with him.)

No. By investigating I mean examining such evidence there is from all quarters and recognising the difference between "he says, she says" and material evidence.

The net provides an awful lot from all sides, most of which is unreliable without hard evidence. For me this is nothing to do with the existence of the supernatural, which I assume just about everyone here dismisses. It is to do with the assumption made by some members that anything goes in what amounts to a veritable hate campaign against one of the parties. This is unfair, against the forum's rules, and, in certain instances, probably illegal.

I have received information from those who have a bias, and others who are concerned at the level of abusive behaviour. While it would be true to say that nobody comes out of this squeaky clean, you only have to examine forums in the name of Sean Manchester and those in the name of David Farrant to see where all the hatred lies. The impression I have from the Manchester camp is that this business is boring, dead and buried. From the Farrant camp I have the impression that real hatred is harboured for reasons of envy and sheer malice. The latter will keep this going for ever because it is really all they have. Those actively supporting Farrant are mostly unemployed and have nothing better to do with their time. None have actually met Manchester, as far as I can tell, or had contact with him.

This was something of a one-sided debate on the James Randi forum until I started to redress the balance, but I hold no particular brief for any of the active parties.

 

[Darat]

...snip...

This was something of a one-sided debate on the James Randi forum until I started to redress the balance, but I hold no particular brief for any of the
active parties.

Thanks - so just to make it clear you have no connection to Sean Manchester?

 

[Myth Buster]

Burden of proof

Questioning someone's credentials isn't an act of hate, though. Anyone can state they are a bishop of some church. Proving they are a bishop is quite another thing. And the burden of proof will be on the bishop.

They could, but why would they want to? You seem to forget that Sean Manchester has worked in the broadcast media for almost four decades and his credentials as a bona fide bishop (which means properly consecrated bishop, not whether someone who doesn't like him disapproves) are known to many eminent churchmen.

There is no burden of proof on someone to validate their standing. In law the burden of proof is entirely on the person who publishes a falsehood and/or a slur on another's standing, office, title or status.

See: http://www.holygrail-church.fsnet.co.uk/BSC.htm (where a leading Anglican Bishop supports Sean Manchester's validity at a hearing chaired by him).

Also: http://www.independentoldcatholic.org:80/adclerum+sm.html (where Sean Manchester's validity is supported by those within his own denomination, ie Old Catholic).

 

[Miss Whiplash]

They could, but why would they want to? You seem to forget that Sean Manchester has worked in the broadcast media for almost four decades and his credentials as a bona fide bishop (which means properly consecrated bishop, not whether someone who doesn't like him disapproves) are known to many eminent churchmen.

There is no burden of proof on someone to validate their standing. In law the burden of proof is entirely on the person who publishes a falsehood and/or a slur on another's standing, office, title or status.

See: http://www.holygrail-church.fsnet.co.uk/BSC.htm (where a leading Anglican Bishop supports Sean Manchester's validity at a hearing chaired by him).

Also: http://www.independentoldcatholic.org:80/adclerum+sm.html (where Sean Manchester's validity is supported by those within his own denomination, ie Old Catholic).

And that's all been mentioned before and still not independent verification. If the person claiming to be a bishop thinks themselves above proving his statements, then we must think he's making empty claims.

There is no burden of proof on someone to validate their standing. In law the burden of proof is entirely on the person who publishes a falsehood and/or a slur on another's standing, office, title or status.

Wrong. If that were so, anyone could claim they were a doctor and remove your brain. The burden of proof is upon the person making the claims. In this case it is a self proclaimed bishop who must provide some validation other than his own website.

You never answered Darat's question. Do you or do you not have some affiliation with Sean Manchester?

 

[CatherineFearnley]

Grow Up

By posting on the JREF Forum you agree to abide by and follow the Guidelines and Rules. These include:

1. Be civil and polite. - Also since when have Myth Buster been civil and polite, he has come on here and publically attacked Barbara and myself by making false statements against ourselves for being into Spiritualism, Wicca, the Occult and God knows what. That is inticing Religious Hatred.

2. You will not post anything that is considered to be potentially criminal. - We have not posted anything that is potentially criminal please state where we have. All we have stated is FACTS which can be found in Manchester's books should anyone be silly enough to read them.

3. You will not post a person's private information that is not otherwise publicly available. Sean Manchester's private information is publically available. Everyone knows where Manchester's private retreat is for God's sake he advertises it all over everywhere. I think if anyone has a right to complain it is Barbara and myself.

Catherine and Barbara have not been civil and polite. -Neither has MYTHBUSTER

They have posted potentially criminal material which is harassing, threatening and maliciously false. Some of the material they have posted contravenes the UK's Data Protection Act 1998 and the Religious Hatred Act 2006. Grow up MYTHBUSTER what we have posted is NONE RELIGIOUS. Whereby you are always posting up RELIGIOUS hatred against ourselves, David and everyone else to boot, and yes we can find evidence of this. Not only that but you are constantly referring to David's so-called past Criminal offences as everyone reading this board can find out. And if we have posted religious hatred online on this forum, again provide evidence of this. We are not threatening, we have not made malicious false statements on here or elsewhere. Everything that we have been said can be checked out.

They have also posted private information that is not otherwise publicly available, ie the identity of the town where the object of their hatred has a private residence.

Again everyone knows where the town of Manchester's Bournemouth retreat is. It's advertised on his blasted message boards. GROW UP. If you can't stand the heat get out of the Kitchen

Catherine Fearnley

 

[CatherineFearnley]

We can also provide evidence that Manchester isn't a proper Bishop either. Not only that but the Official Old Catholic Church has renounced all support as claimed on their website and any other sites which claim that they are supportive are indeed in error. The Independent Old Catholic Church is not the same as the Old Catholic Church. It is entirely different. Manchester claims to be from the Official Old Catholic Church on his ghastly website. He can't have his cake and eat it.

Catherine.

PS MythBuster is Manchester. If the moderators of this forum care to check out his ISP number.

 

[CatherineFearnley]

Yes and is it any wonder why there is real hatred considering what Manchester has done in the past and also nowadays. He did post all our names, addresses, and phone numbers on the infamous Combat 18 message boards and we have all the original emails which prove this including headers and footers and ISP numbers. It's about time that Manchester stopped and started to redress the balance before it's too late. Mind you I think he's gone way past it to even try to make ammends. It's no wonder that so many people in the world hate his guts. Nothing what we have posted is FALSE, MALICIOUS OR THREATENING.


Catherine

 

[CatherineFearnley]

On another note if the Manchester camp think we're so dead and boring why have they got two or three threads dedicated to us on his silly Cross and Stake forum, we can't be that boring otherwise they would not have done this. Enough said.

Catherine

 

[Lisa Simpson]

Please do not bring your feuds from other forums here.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Lisa Simpson

 

[CatherineFearnley]

Just to add also--

I am not unemployed, I have a highly responsible job. Anyway, what does it matter, and how does Manchester "know" who or who isnt unemployed. ? Furthermore it isnt a sin to be unemployed, or something to be ashamed of. He should know!!!! He hasnt had a job in years other than as a milkman, vampire hunter or phoney bishop!

What is"potentially libellous"? Another silly meaningless booby--either you a re libellous or you arent!

These posts are almost certainly from SM himself. His style is unmistakable? We have had this claptrap for years. He never answers an awkward question, only starts another line of fire, aimed at spouting off usually Davids past.

Is this the action of a Christian, bishop or no bishop, to refuse to let a persons mistakes (justified or not) be left in privacy. David did nothing that Manchester himself did not do, that is they both trepassed in Highgate Cemetary, and I might add also that Yes , I trepassed on Robin Hoods Grave because Lady Armytage would not allow reasonable access. I did not do ciminal damage though. Manchester ALSO TREPASSED ON ROBIN HOODS GRAVE on his vampire hunt! Ditto!
But as I said, what kind of Christian plasters a persons criminal record all over the Internet--and by snail mail---for going on 40 years. This is what Masnchester has been doing and if he doesnt like the furore he has drawn upon his own teap pot cosies head, they too bad, as it is entirely his own responsibility. I am sure he is probabaly contravening the FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT in doing this and will certainly check it out.

barbara

 

[CatherineFearnley]

Sorry Lisa It won't happen again I can assure you. I was just merely stating evidence of the fact that if he thinks we're boring why does he keep bringing us up in conversation. Why does he threaten to sue us all the time. Why does he not actually carry out this threat? How does MythBuster know that we are unemployed? Has he actually ever met any of us? He seems to know such a lot about us. If anyone wants to know the evidence then all they have to do is search the internet. It is not one sided. There is hatred on both sides as anyone researching the infamous Highgate Vampire will find out. I was with Manchester at one point. In fact it was myself who originally got him on the net in my infinate wisdom. But thankfully I am not in his camp anymore.

Catherine Fearnley

 

[Myth Buster]

Verification and affilitation

And that's all been mentioned before and still not independent verification. If the person claiming to be a bishop thinks themselves above proving his statements, then we must think he's making empty claims. Wrong. If that were so, anyone could claim they were a doctor and remove your brain. The burden of proof is upon the person making the claims. In this case it is a self proclaimed bishop who must provide some validation other than his own website. You never answered Darat's question. Do you or do you not have some affiliation with Sean Manchester?

So a senior Anglican Bishop within the Church of England as by Law Established is not verification?

And if Old Catholics in the UK publish an Ad Clerum in support of Sean Manchester, how can he possibly be described as "self-proclaimed"?

Furthermore, why should he or anyone else feel obliged to prove anything to those who are obviously out to ridicule and defame him, especially when they are also out to ridicule and defame his traditional brand of religion?

The fact still remains that he was properly ordained and consecrated. Those three occasions were witnessed. Only militant atheists like yourself and those waging a compulsive hate campaign raise this as an issue. Why should he or those in his church be remotely bothered by what you think, say or do? You are against him.

Regarding Darat's question, I thought I had answered it.

Will you answer this question: do you have some affiliation with David Farrant?

 

[Myth Buster]

Get a life and while you're at it a job too!

Why does he threaten to sue us all the time. Why does he not actually carry out this threat? How does MythBuster know that we are unemployed? Has he actually ever met any of us? He seems to know such a lot about us. ... I was with Manchester at one point. In fact it was myself who originally got him on the net in my infinate wisdom. But thankfully I am not in his camp anymore. Catherine Fearnley

Where is there any evidence that Sean Manchester has ever threatened to sue you?

I have read what you have published on various message boards in the past. That is how I came upon information about you, including the fact that you have been a part-time cleaner and are now unemployed. This has also been confirmed by someone in your camp.

I have not met any of you. Have you met Sean Manchester? No, I didn't think so. That doesn't stop you having opinions and publishing them on the net.

I have heard this claim of yours about "being with Manchester" before. Sean Manchester built his first website in 1999. You came along three or four years later, made contact by email and offered to moderate an MSN group for him. You were apparently so inept that he had to have someone else do it all for you until it became obvious that you were playing a deceitful game and were in league with Farrant. This is all on record, but who do you imagine is remotely interested apart from you, Barbara and Farrant? I have to agree in this instance with the Manchester camp, it is all so petty, tedious and boring.

 

[Myth Buster]

Another violation

Again everyone knows where the town of Manchester's ... retreat is. It's advertised on his blasted message boards. Catherine Fearnley

Then provide the link to where it is advertised.

There is no mention anywhere of the actual place.

Only you and Barbara have repeatedly identified this private information and in doing so you are in violation of the rules you agreed to when joining this forum.

 

[Darat]

...snip...

Regarding Darat's question, I thought I had answered it.

...snip...

No you haven't, in case you've forgotten it:

...Thanks - so just to make it clear you have no connection to Sean Manchester?...

 

[CatherineFearnley]

Give me strength! Sean Manchester has only one person alive who is prepared to"verify" his credentials as a proper bishop, that is John Kersey of a branch of the Old Catholic Church already discussed. The other is the deceased Primate of the Roman Catholic Church, Cardinal Basil Hume, who got his photo taken at an open day at Westmister Cathedral with Manchester quite by chance -- and now Manchester has the disrespect to then put words in th deceased Cardinals mouth that he was his greatest friend.

If you want the link to the Bournemouth Retreat I can hand it out, or put it on the board

barbara