Anthony Hogg wearing his mask revealing a demonic aspect.
Anthony Hogg, who lives in a suburb of Melbourne, Australia, has been stalking and harassing Bishop Manchester on the internet ever since he was expelled from a forum several years ago for refusing to stop posting about David Farrant whom the membership wanted to hear no more about. Mr Hogg, who always hides behind a demonic mask, immediately began to attack the bishop after his expulsion and started opening numerous forums, blogs and boards with a common aim and title (lifted from the headline of a news feature about Bishop Manchester in the Hampstead & Highgate Express, 27 February 1970).
His theme is always the same and he appears to many outsiders as a totally manic individual who is obsessed with two of the people associated with events that occurred on the other side of the world before he was born. One of them is obviously Bishop Manchester. The other is David Farrant. Anthony Hogg is not just pathologically obsessed with Bishop Manchester and the bishop's adversary, but is also too stupid to resist Mr Farrant's machinations despite being the subject of ridicule in comics distributed by the latter. Mr Hogg allows himself so easily to be drawn into doing precisely what Mr Farrant wants, ie violating Bishop Manchester. David Farrant is clearly a lost cause and beyond help. One could almost pity such a pathetic creature. Anthony Hogg is someone totally outside the forty-year-old Highgate Cemetery saga who decided to insinuate himself into latter-day arguments long after the history itself had reached a conclusion. His attitude towards Mr Farrant is perhaps understandable, but he allows himself to be manipulated which is something only a fool would do. In being manipulated by Mr Farrant, Mr Hogg posts libellous abuse about Bishop Manchester which is equal to anything the anti-BSM clique resort to at the height of their malice. In fact, Mr Hogg frequently uses antipathetic sources such as the grotesque Don Ecker character and seems to take immense pleasure regurgitating David Farrant's unsubstantiated garbage about Bishop Manchester. On a Facebook group comprising only David Farrant sympathisers which Mr Hogg administrates in tandem with Redmond McWilliams (a homosexual friend of Mr Farrant), Anthony Hogg describes Bishop Manchester as "a despot" and "a fuckin' lowlife." On a blog elsewhere he boasted: "Trust me, that's not the worst I could've said." When asked to explain himself, however, he failed to do so. There is something deeply disturbing about Anthony Hogg who is patently a stalker with malicious intent and clearly someone with deep issues, possibly a narcissitic personality disorder, ie an inflated sense of self-importance, need for admiration, extreme self-involvement, and lack of empathy for others.
An FoBSM member spoke to a new member of the Supernatural World forum and their communications go a long way to explain Mr Hogg’s modus operandi. We do not personally know Gerard de Saxo, and he is not an FoBSM member.
Exchanges via private messages on a forum for the discussion of the supernatural follow:
.
Vampire Researcher wrote to Gerard de Saxo:
A brief synopsis would be that certain people are totally obsessed with the happenings that might have occurred at Highgate around forty years ago, and it has completely taken over their lives. These people do not believe in vampires and most of them were not even born when the incidents are said to have taken place. There is also a stalking element where the antagonist (David Farrant) and protagonist (Seán Manchester) are pursued ruthlessly by obsessives such as Anthony Hogg who harasses both characters almost every day of his life. David Farrant, of course, has criminal convictions for desecration and vandalism at Highgate Cemetery and a history of publicity-seeking linked to pseudo-occultism while Seán Manchester, who wrote the bestselling book “The Highgate Vampire” a quarter of a century ago, is now in holy orders and indeed is the Bishop of Glastonbury.
That is the short version. I have naturally spared you the long version
You will note that I have ceased to post on these threads because I am tired of being falsely accused by a small clique led by Farrant of being who I am not. You have faced the same problem and no longer appear to be contributing any further comments on the Highgate related threads, which is a shame. The moderator has no problem with members’ identities being discussed and falsely attributed to a person under constant attack, namely Seán Manchester. Incredibly, there was a time on other forums where Farrant accused Anthony Hogg of being Seán Manchester. In fact, anyone who opposes Farrant will at some point be accused of being Seán Manchester. Obviously his ex-girlfriend, Catherine Fearnley, is not accused, but she is nonetheless falsely described as having been colluding with Seán Manchester over the last three years when all that has happened is she sought his advice which, when given, was no different to that of her priest.
What I find most frustrating is how none of the members ask the most obvious questions, and, moreover, why the moderator refuses to implement the stated terms and conditions of forum membership.
Fore example, Farrant, without actually naming him, is clearly identifying Seán Manchester as the culprit of an alleged malicious email with this comment:
“Especially maybe, when you DO know who the person is. You made him a friend on your Facebook account (which you since made private) and indeed; even posted him a potential book you had written about myself on the Highgate case titled “The Highgate Vampire and Me”.”
BlueOrchid (Catherine Fearnley) sought approval as a friend of Seán Manchester on Facebook, and Farrant has repeatedly claimed on the internet that she sent him her manuscript about Highgate, even though, according to Seán Manchester, no such manuscript was ever received by him.
BlackOrchid (an unknown female who also posts on Farrant’s personal blog as Clarmonde) is a close friend of Farrant’s who has visited him and even cooked dinners for him, according to Farrant’s blog. She has never identified herself, so how could Seán Manchester (or indeed anyone other than Farrant) have her email address? To accuse Seán Manchester of falsely sending emails using Catherine Fearnley’s account to BlackOrchid is a libellous allegation and completely illogical when you think about it. Catherine Fearnley, by the way, has never met Seán Manchester and has only ever had infrequent internet contact like many others with the author and bishop. He has always advised her to let these obsessions go and move forward with her life.
The terms and conditions clearly state that “you will not use this bulletin board to post any material which is knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate.” Farrant is deliberately posting material which he knows to be false, defamatory and inacurrate about Seán Manchester who, incidnetally, is a friend and colleague of mine.
BlackOrchid is known only to Farrant. Nobody else on these forums know her true identity. The alleged email she claims was sent to her by Catherine Fearnley has never been seen. She was invited on another forum to publish the email with html, including headers and footers, so that it could be traced and examined for authenticity. She failed to do so. Nobody has actually seen this email except her and Farrant, which straight away raises questions as to whether the email ever existed and if this is not yet another ruse to attack Farrant’s perceived enemies and cause strife for them. It certainly brought Catherine Fearnley out of her internet exile. Her priest had asked her not to engage in these pointless exchanges with Farrant. Seán Manchester advised her to completely ignore Farrant when she sought his advice over the last three years. She has never explained why she suddenly recently deleted and blocked him on Facebook, but I can virtually guarantee Farrant and BlackOrchid are at the root of this and much else.
N.B.
Catherine Fearnley (BlueOrchid) has finally been informed it was someone who works in a prison who sent the alleged email and not Seán Manchester who David Farrant (President BPOS) publicly and falsely blamed on this forum.
President BPOS [David Farrant], on 02 September 2010 – 02:20 PM, said:
FOR BLUE ORCHID
… you DO know who the person is. You made him a friend on your Facebook account (which you since made private) and indeed; even posted him a potential book you had written about myself on the Highgate case titled “The Highgate Vampire and Me”. So please do not now try and play ‘Miss innocent’. If it had not been for your private contacts with this person, this could never have had happened. …
Link: http://www.thesupernaturalworld.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=25683&view=findpost&p=471624
“Also had a few interesting days on the Supernatural Forum, I had to put right a set of serious allegations made against me by one of the members who was claiming I sent her and her friend a malicious email. It turns out that it’s someone who lives in Ham, London, works in a prison and lives near a Convent. Unfortunately this is not me. I live in West Yorkshire, do not work, and certainly don’t live in or near a convent as much as I would like to. Still nothing much to do right now, let it all settle down. Catherine Fearnley”
__________________________________________________________
Gerard de Saxo responded:
Dear Vampire Researcher,
Thankyou for taking the time to explain these matters.
I have to admit, when I first read some of the posts I was hoodwinked into thinking you might be the Bishop, which is why I asked a question about him on the board. Soon after it became obvious what they were doing when I was “accused” of being the Bishop as well.
I may comment further but it seems rather pointless if all it does is prolong the hatred shown towards Bishop Manchester.
I spent (or rather wasted) a good couple of hours going through Anthony’s blog. Wow – The poor man is utterly comsumed by every little detail, most of it is nothing to do with the original case or anything remotely paranormal. I get the feeling he is trying to garner a reputation purely on the back of stoking the feudal fire. Perhaps he has OCD or something, but he needs get a grip on things.
Best Wishes,
Gerard.
_________________
.
An exchange was attempted some days earlier on the same forum between Vampire Researcher and Anthony Hogg. It is reproduced below with Vampire Researcher addressing Mr Hogg whom he quotes (though the first quote is from Mr Farrant who is addressing Mr Hogg).
Sent 25 August 2010 – 11:35 AM
“I never ‘broke into’ any vaults, Anthony. Most of them had already been broken into and the doors left wide open in those days when the Cemetery was open to the public in 1970 (in daylight hours).” - David Farrant
Farrant not only broke into vaults, he was found guilty of doing so and also causing malicious vandalism to them.
It is a lie for him to claim that most vaults had already been broken into; a lie which suits his purpose. Thousands of photographs were taken by many photographers of Highgate Cemetery and its Victorian Valhalla in the period prior to Farrant’s many incursions and the vaults look undamaged and intact. Such damage that occurred afflicted graves which were not vaults or, at least, could not be entered like a mausoleum. Farrant was mostly photographed at night in a number of mausoleums. I believe Tony Hill took some daylight pictures. Farrant’s girlfriend, Martine de Sacy, took the really incriminating ones of Farrant (where he is standing in front of Satanic symbols in a family vault) which led to his arrest in early 1974. Hill’s pictures show Farrant in the terrace catacombs wearing Hill’s jacket and peering into a coffin with a torch and rosary. It was impossible to enter the terrace catacombs because the iron entrances were always locked. They remain locked to this day. In his book, the Bishop explains how a light vent in the roof above (where people walked at a higher level immediately behind St Michael’s Church) was the only way to gain access to the catacombs. Farrant would have been obliged to have used a similar method.
Quote:
“So why can’t Manchester say that himself? Why don’t you get him to issue a formal statement, declaring that he wants ‘nothing to do with’ Barbara? Also, isn’t it a bit odd for a Christian bishop to turn away someone who simply wants a ‘nice and civil’ conversation with him?” – Anthony Hogg
Why should a Christian Bishop need to issue a formal statement for the benefit of a stalker who harasses, abuses and defames him most days of her life? What manner of Bishop would do such a thing? He wants nothing to do with people associated with Farrant socially, whether this is on the internet or anywhere else. In the ecclesial and spiritual sense he has made attempts to communicate with Barbara Green to put an end to her harassment. When he telephoned her she put the ‘phone down as soon as he revealed his identity, telling him as she did so: “I don’t want to talk to you.” Then the ‘phone was immediately slammed down. This has been discussed in the past on the internet. He also sent her an email asking why she was prolonging her dissemination of misinformation about him and fabricating falsehood about him. He also informed her that he was not in collusion with Catherine Fearnley, as she, along with Farrant, was accusing him. She did not respond to the Bishop, but discussed the private email online and shared its contents with Farrant.
Why have you never asked Barbara Green why she hasn’t raised any of her questions where Bishop Manchester would deal with them? She has been given his blog address many times and has always ignored it. She obviously prefers to pose her questions where he is not present.
Quote:
“Considering how dodgy the Bishop can be, himself, is it any wonder why Barbara expresses such vehemence for him? He hardly helps his own case.” – Anthony Hogg
I don’t regard the Bishop as “dodgy” because I know him. You don’t, and merely search out what you perceive to be “dodgy” where others do not perceive it as such. You have an agenda which is deeply critical of the Bishop at any price. You are also critical of Farrant, but who in their right mind wouldn’t be? Farrant is a fraud and if put to the test will always be found to be a fraud. The law courts have demonstrated adequately that he is a fake. The Bishop cannot do more to “help his case” than he has already done. Barbara Green intends to do Farrant’s bidding and slams the ‘phone down on the Bishop while ignoring his emails seeking a solution and explaining the truth regarding lies she spreads from day to day about him. What more could he possibly do? Remember her is his will? Or invite her to every social occasion he hosts? Get real, and face the facts. Barbara Green is waging a vicious vendetta against Bishop Manchester, and she has been doing so for over thirteen years!
Quote:
“Worse still, you are a friend of Farrant which makes you persona non grata as far as he is concerned.” – Anthony Hogg [quoting Vampire Researcher addressing Barbara Green on the forum.]
Correct and that applies to anyone who is in Farrant’s pocket as far as Bishop Manchester and his colleagues are concerned. It means she is not a welcome socially as a friend, but that does not exclude her communicating as an individual to a man of the cloth. Even Farrant can do that and has been informed on innuemerable occasions over the years that he can been received at the Bishop’s retreat for a private meeting to try and resolve the situation. Farrant is not interested. What would his life comprise if he did not wage his vendetta against Bishop Manchester every day he awakes? He leads an empty existence filled only by his resentment, envy and hatred for a man he has not had contact with for decades.
Quote:
“So the Bishop rejects anyone with an association to Farrant? Talk about a grudge – something Bishops shouldn’t have, right?” – Anthony Hogg
Yes, on a social level. No, not on an ecclesial and spiritual level. Try to look beyond your own prejudices against someone who represents everything you apparently dislike. He’s a traditionalist. You are a liberal. He is a Catholic. You are a Baptist, which places you about as far away from a Traditionalist Catholic as you can possibly get. Many Baptists, I am not saying you are one, are extremely hostile towards Catholics at the best of times. You like to appear “street wise” using foul language when it suits you, and clearly like to curry favour with people who actually can’t abide you. There is a fawning element to you which some might find unattractive. I know I do. The Bishop is not interested in being liked and would certainly not try to make himself popular with people for the sake of having support at any price. In that regard you are much closer to Farrant than the Bishop. Even so, the Bishop has approaching four thousand Facebook friends after, I am told, refusing the majority who seek to be approved. He does not approve friends unless he knows them or there is some other legitimate reason.
Returning to the unpleasant aspect you share with Farrant, he had a visit from a school teacher by the name of Beverley a couple of weeks ago. She wanted to know why she and her husband, Kevin, were receiving hate-flled pamphlets against Bishop Manchester through the mail, and how he got their address. Farrant lied to her, of course, and on his blog falsely claims that she telephoned him two days later to ask for “evidence” comprising doctored emails involving Patsy Langley (who the Bishop has only ever communicated, and only then for legal purposes, by snail mail) supposedly had from the Bishop to be forwarded to her. Beverley, a close friend of the Bishop and his wife, denies ever making that call, and witnessed on her visit to Muswell Hill Road (not far from the school where she teaches) the incerdible obsequiousness and fawning Farrant engaged in. He was probably terrified of what her husband might do to him, and not without reason. Kevin, her husband, had spoken about dealing with Farrant in his own way until the Bishop advised against it.
Quote:
“Yet, you answer on his behalf repeatedly. So why clam up now, when you’re being asked pertinent questions about the Case? Why tell her she knows who to contact after telling her that he wouldn’t give her the time of day? Just petty nonsense.” – Anthony Hogg
I asked why would anyone want to give this stalker the time of day, which is me offering my opinion. Please note the difference. I do not answer on the Bishop’s behalf. I do not need to as someone who has read what he has written, have access to the archive, and know him personally. I can deal with a lot of the propaganda and misinformation myself, as can anyone else who is as close to the Bishop as I am. That does not mean I or anyone else is answering on the Bishop’s behalf. It means we are stating the obvious.
__________________________________________________________
Response from Anthony Hogg on 25 August 2010 – 12:52 PM:
Hi,
I’m no longer interested in receiving correspondence from yourself. All the stuff you’re saying here, can be said on the forum. No point in privately contacting me about it. So, kindly cease doing so.
.
And that was the last Vampire Researcher heard from Mr Hogg who adopts the tactic of censorship with anyone favourable to Bishop Manchester. Mr Hogg accuses FoBSM on his own blog of having “no clearly defined purpose.” Yet in the same sentence he quotes our purpose as being “an informal support group who act in the bishop’s interest as they perceive that interest to be.” His own compulsion to blog, post, pursue, harass and stalk Bishop Manchester occupies his daily routine on the other side of the world. Meanwhile, FoBSM have apparently been “blocked” from sending Mr Hogg emails when all we did was foward carbon copies of rebuttals primarily sent to Catherine Fearnley regarding her inaccurate allegations and libellous comments about Bishop Manchester in recent interviews she gave Mr Hogg who published such misrepresentation on the internet. That way we couldn’t be misquoted by either Miss Fearnley or Mr Hogg; neither of whom, needless to say, have published a single word contained in our comprehensive refutations.
Anthony Hogg has adopted a variety of pseudonyms in the past, including The Inquisitive One, The Overseer, Amateur Vampirolgist and tnuocalucard ("Count Dracula" spelt backwards).
Unfortunately, Mr Hogg has gonse so far as to publish a UK address in full (originally offered specifically for people who want to receive signed and personally dedicated copies of Bishop Manchester's books). The excuse given is that he found it on the internet. His dissemination of the address was not an act of benevolence because it appears in the context of constant vitriol and malicious allegations against Bishop Manchester with whom the address is obviously associated. This act is considered as incitement even by those who do not support the bishop. Mr Hogg should refrain from publishing on the internet addresses of those he attacks; especially as he would be the first to raise the roof if his own address was published.
Anthony Hogg continues to this day to obsess about Bishop Manchester on other people's forums and his own blogs. The following is a typical example of how he deviously tries to incite animosity:
"I had a brief discussion about the term 'vampiroid' on The Superntaural World forum, in which I said that 'vampiroids' wouldn't be overly thrilled with the term. But it got me thinking, how would they actually handle it? The context I specifically mention is the definition provided by Sean Manchester, i.e. 'Britain's only full-time vampire hunter. ... You might not agree with (or believe) Manchester's 'profession', but what do you think of the definition, itself? Is it 'politically incorrect' or accurate terminology? I'd love to hear from people who identify themselves as vampires, perhaps some who've (obviously) been contributing to the poll." – Anthony Hogg
A member of the Vampire Research Society under the user-name Vampirologist posted the following comment still awaiting moderation (though Mr Hogg claims somewhat unconvincingly on a blog of his own relating to this FoBSM entry that he did not see it):
You offer "[Bishop] Manchester's 'profession'" as "Britain's only full-time vampire hunter" when you know very well that Seán Manchester has never described himself as such. That description belongs to somebody else. You purposely fail to attribute it to its source because that would affect the false picture you wish to present of the man whose profession is that of bishop with a specialist ministry in demonolatry and exorcism. But you already know that, Anthony, don't you? It just suits your agenda to misrepresent what his full-time profession really is.
Your petty obsession with this man and the case he investigated four decades ago is a clear indication of your state of mind. Bishop Seán Manchester has given his final interview on the vampire case that made him a household name. Why can't you now give it a rest?
Year after year you irritate the hell out of people on the internet with your compulsive behaviour and obvious fixation with Seán Manchester whom you misrepresent and abuse from one week to the next. What is the matter with you? There must be something seriously wrong when you focus on a stranger twice your age living on the other side of the world who you don't know or especially like.
You either need to get a life or at least get some professional psychiatric help. I'm serious, Anthony. You are out on a limb. Nobody supports your behaviour. At best, it is tolerated. At worst, it is pathological.
This is not the beginning of a dialogue between us, Anthony. Knowing how obsessive you are where these matters are concerned, it is the end of one.
Vampirologist dealt with the Facebook group and Anthony Hogg for the final time in November 2011:
Anthony Hogg chided Vampirologist for criticising Jamie Farrant for "not helping to renew relations" between Bishop Manchester and David Farrant when, in fact, he had suggested nothing of the kind. Neither Bishop Manchester nor Mr Farrant desire the "renewal" of something that did not exist in the first place. This is how Anthony Hogg misrepresents, misdirects and makes mayhem where it otherwise would not exist. What Vampirologist suggested to Farrant's son was that instead of continuing to exacerbate and spread his father's legacy of malice he should be attempting to help David Farrant get counselling and possibly treatment for what is clearly unacceptable behaviour that includes sending malicious pamphlets of an offensive nature to anyone thought to have a connection with the bishop, including his family and friends.
Vampirologist posted his positively final comment on the fraudster David Farrant on 20 November 2011. It can be found on his blog at this link:
http://vampirologist.blogspot.com/2011/11/farrant-facts.html
Anthony Hogg has adopted a variety of pseudonyms in the past, including The Inquisitive One, The Overseer, Amateur Vampirolgist and tnuocalucard ("Count Dracula" spelt backwards).
Unfortunately, Mr Hogg has gonse so far as to publish a UK address in full (originally offered specifically for people who want to receive signed and personally dedicated copies of Bishop Manchester's books). The excuse given is that he found it on the internet. His dissemination of the address was not an act of benevolence because it appears in the context of constant vitriol and malicious allegations against Bishop Manchester with whom the address is obviously associated. This act is considered as incitement even by those who do not support the bishop. Mr Hogg should refrain from publishing on the internet addresses of those he attacks; especially as he would be the first to raise the roof if his own address was published.
Anthony Hogg continues to this day to obsess about Bishop Manchester on other people's forums and his own blogs. The following is a typical example of how he deviously tries to incite animosity:
"I had a brief discussion about the term 'vampiroid' on The Superntaural World forum, in which I said that 'vampiroids' wouldn't be overly thrilled with the term. But it got me thinking, how would they actually handle it? The context I specifically mention is the definition provided by Sean Manchester, i.e. 'Britain's only full-time vampire hunter. ... You might not agree with (or believe) Manchester's 'profession', but what do you think of the definition, itself? Is it 'politically incorrect' or accurate terminology? I'd love to hear from people who identify themselves as vampires, perhaps some who've (obviously) been contributing to the poll." – Anthony Hogg
A member of the Vampire Research Society under the user-name Vampirologist posted the following comment still awaiting moderation (though Mr Hogg claims somewhat unconvincingly on a blog of his own relating to this FoBSM entry that he did not see it):
You offer "[Bishop] Manchester's 'profession'" as "Britain's only full-time vampire hunter" when you know very well that Seán Manchester has never described himself as such. That description belongs to somebody else. You purposely fail to attribute it to its source because that would affect the false picture you wish to present of the man whose profession is that of bishop with a specialist ministry in demonolatry and exorcism. But you already know that, Anthony, don't you? It just suits your agenda to misrepresent what his full-time profession really is.
Your petty obsession with this man and the case he investigated four decades ago is a clear indication of your state of mind. Bishop Seán Manchester has given his final interview on the vampire case that made him a household name. Why can't you now give it a rest?
Year after year you irritate the hell out of people on the internet with your compulsive behaviour and obvious fixation with Seán Manchester whom you misrepresent and abuse from one week to the next. What is the matter with you? There must be something seriously wrong when you focus on a stranger twice your age living on the other side of the world who you don't know or especially like.
You either need to get a life or at least get some professional psychiatric help. I'm serious, Anthony. You are out on a limb. Nobody supports your behaviour. At best, it is tolerated. At worst, it is pathological.
This is not the beginning of a dialogue between us, Anthony. Knowing how obsessive you are where these matters are concerned, it is the end of one.
Vampirologist dealt with the Facebook group and Anthony Hogg for the final time in November 2011:
Anthony Hogg chided Vampirologist for criticising Jamie Farrant for "not helping to renew relations" between Bishop Manchester and David Farrant when, in fact, he had suggested nothing of the kind. Neither Bishop Manchester nor Mr Farrant desire the "renewal" of something that did not exist in the first place. This is how Anthony Hogg misrepresents, misdirects and makes mayhem where it otherwise would not exist. What Vampirologist suggested to Farrant's son was that instead of continuing to exacerbate and spread his father's legacy of malice he should be attempting to help David Farrant get counselling and possibly treatment for what is clearly unacceptable behaviour that includes sending malicious pamphlets of an offensive nature to anyone thought to have a connection with the bishop, including his family and friends.
Vampirologist posted his positively final comment on the fraudster David Farrant on 20 November 2011. It can be found on his blog at this link:
http://vampirologist.blogspot.com/2011/11/farrant-facts.html
Bishop Seán Manchester has only once commented on Anthony Hogg when he opined on Friday, 13 April 2012:
"Anthony Hogg (Melbourne, Australia), approximately 30 years of age, unmarried, not in a relationship, liberal, modernist, claims to be a Christian (Baptist) but evinces extremely unChristian behaviour, eg profanity (I have been referred to as 'a fuckin' lowlife' by him). There is not a day that passes where Anthony Hogg is not trolling and posting harassing comments about me somewhere on the internet. This self-proclaimed Christian's cyber-friends are either immersed in witchcraft and the occult, or profess to be atheists. Constantly critical of me because I am a traditional Christian bishop, Anthony Hogg himself remains totally anonymous — always wearing a demonic mask to cover his face and identity. He correctly states that John Pope has recently become a Muslim, but fails to acknowledge that this man still claims to be 'a master of the black arts.' John Pope also remains a so-called 'Mason' within what can only be described as a satanic lodge inhabited by like-minded perverts.
"I am especially intrigued to find Anthony Hogg distinguishing between Luciferians and Satanists because only occult-minded non-Christians woud make that distinction. The term 'Luciferian' is really a euphemism for 'Satanist' and adherents of both engage in the same unpleasant and disgusting practices. How do we distinguish between the Luciferian Jean-Paul Bourre performing an animal sacrifice in a graveyard at night during what he euphemistically calls a 'Red Mass' and a self-proclaimed Satanist, such as John Pope has been since the early 1970s, performing the same vile act? Not surprisingly, self-styled Luciferians and Satanists are frequently found in association and naturally supportive of each another with very few exceptions. Yet the self-professed 'Baptist' Anthony Hogg differentiates between Luciferians and Satanists while all other Christians without exception recognise Satanism — commonly referred to as Devil worship — as being the general term for worship of the biblical Lucifer, or Satan (Genesis 3: 1 – 15; Isaiah 14: 12)."
“For even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. Therefore it is not surprising if his servants also disguise themselves as servants of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their deeds.”
"I am especially intrigued to find Anthony Hogg distinguishing between Luciferians and Satanists because only occult-minded non-Christians woud make that distinction. The term 'Luciferian' is really a euphemism for 'Satanist' and adherents of both engage in the same unpleasant and disgusting practices. How do we distinguish between the Luciferian Jean-Paul Bourre performing an animal sacrifice in a graveyard at night during what he euphemistically calls a 'Red Mass' and a self-proclaimed Satanist, such as John Pope has been since the early 1970s, performing the same vile act? Not surprisingly, self-styled Luciferians and Satanists are frequently found in association and naturally supportive of each another with very few exceptions. Yet the self-professed 'Baptist' Anthony Hogg differentiates between Luciferians and Satanists while all other Christians without exception recognise Satanism — commonly referred to as Devil worship — as being the general term for worship of the biblical Lucifer, or Satan (Genesis 3: 1 – 15; Isaiah 14: 12)."
“For even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. Therefore it is not surprising if his servants also disguise themselves as servants of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their deeds.”
(2 Corinthians 11: 14-15)
.
It is a complete waste of time addressing Hogg. He just likes to argue for argument's sake (the one fact I can agree with David Farrant about). Hogg jumped on the Highgate Vampire bandwagon for a free ride. He wants to be noticed, but is obviously getting frustrated because nobody is interested. Less than half a dozen members is all he can muster because that is how many he has on his "Highgate Cemetery Vampire Appreciation" group which he bizarrely calls a "Society." The seventh member was banned by Hogg and fellow administrator Redmond McWilliams because they feared he was a sympathiser of Seán Manchester. How do I know the seventh member was banned? Because (a) he his name been deleted from the FB group and (b) the group can still be viewed. The banned member is also a member of other forums and groups. That last fact is how I know he is impartial. The VRS group on FB has approaching four hundred members and is very closely monitored with people being dropped (but seldom banned) all the time for posting material not relevant to the Vampire Research Society's remit (otherwise the membership of this closed group would be closer to double that figure). I am not going to explain to Hogg how easy it is to view a closed group such as his own, but allow me to inform everyone that the conversation - much of it from Redmond McWilliams with Hogg joining in with his unpleasantness - is predominantly vitriol against Seán Manchester. Now there's a surprise! "It's not about 'numbers', but content," Hogg claims about his "Highgate Cemetery Vampire Appreciation Society" group. He makes my point because the "content" comprises little other than personal attacks on Seán Manchester. David Farrant comes off virtually unscathed, which is what you would expect when the entire membership, bar Hogg himself, belong to Farrant's clique of sympathetic friends. The "founder" [Redmond McWilliams] of the "HCVAS" visits Farrant in Muswell Hill, London. Farrant has visted the "founder" in Morden, Surrey. The others (less than a handful) include Farrant's eldest son and his girlfriend. They, too, visit Farrant at his Muswell Hill home. That is the sort of closed group we are talking about, so why not call it what it really is: an anti-Seán Manchester hate group! Hogg then protests: "I offered you to join and you've repeatedly ignored that offer." He might want to waste his time pusruing his anti-Seán Manchester agenda, but I've got better things to do than join a den of vipers even if there are only six of them. I already belong to groups where the discussions are impartial, intelligent and don't feel the need to use Farrant as some sort of yardstick. Most people are quite satisfied that Farrant was and remains a fraud and a charlatan. Hogg says of Farrant: "I know that the 'humour' is actually a way of getting back at his critics and his own version of perpetuating the feud." The point is that Farrant's "humour" isn't remotely funny except to a sick individual like himself; and especially not when viewed in the context of his history of pure malice against the targetted people. Hogg concludes with this comment: "You criticised Jamie [Farrant's son] for perpetuating the feud, and why he was doing nothing to resolve it. I asked what you were doing to fix it...nothing." First, I am not related to either David Farrant or Seán Manchester. Second, I ceased commenting on my own blogs and elsewhere about Farrant some time back until now. It made absolutely no difference other than Farrant and son becoming more active in the pursuit of their vendetta. I am not accountable for what other individuals do or say. I probably don't know who they are. But one thing is for certain, Seán Manchester himself does not engage in any of this "feuding" nonsense.