RIP + David Farrant 1946 - 2019 +

Close this search box.

The Human Touch Blog ~
David Farrant

Good Riddance!

Thanks everyone. We have received quite a few emails about my recent Talk, some of which have been forwarded to me.

I’ll give a ‘shared reply’ as this will be easier – apart from which had a ‘busy’ night last night and I’m feeling decidedly lazy! I’ll give details of that Talk a little later. I was told it was well received though and being in the ‘midst’ of it, I have to agree! Its always nice to get a receptive audience, especially to be interviewed by a beautiful lady! And she really IS beautiful – both in body and in spirit – that’s not just me being ‘flirtatious’! She made the interview different by making me be personal, I suppose. Well, she didn’t ‘make’ me, just somehow ‘reached below the surface’ in her beautiful feminine way. But I didn’t mind. I have never minded people asking me questions as long as its not about ‘A’. There are just some personal secrets I feel I am entitled to keep. Still, she didn’t even mention that, so I’m not complaining.

The questions were all reasonable too. One at the end which was a little difficult to answer as it really meant agreeing with an assumption then ‘having to answer it’, if that makes sense?! The guy asked . . . “How does it feel to be a walking legend’ (in relation to my acquired reputation) and . . . “Did I mind it?”.

Well, all I could answer was, of course I ‘minded’, but I pointed out that half the things said about me were not true so that couldn’t change the Truth! Fiction can never affect the Truth – although, of course, there’s always one or two people around who might wish that it could! Apparently, a lot of them went for a drink later in a local pub and she was asked how she ‘got so much out of him’ (me!). I don’t know what she said, although I can always ask her!

What else? Well, I am now told that a certain person has decided to close her Blog this weekend. Good Lord! As if I care! I guess I should, as that person kept persistently referring to myself although the person was fully aware that I did not want to discuss them or answer their comments or accusations in any way. Indeed, I never have done, except when certain comments are posted as ‘fact’ and people bring these to my attention.

The person wants to make her new Blog ‘private’. Well, that’s really a laugh! If she wants to make it ‘private’, them why keep making public statements about myself in the first place?! What is even more ironic, is that there is only one other person posting on it in any event! So its not even exactly ‘read’ in that respect – except perhaps for amusement purposes!

I feel that the person has somehow failed to grasp that they are just not important enough for general readers of the subject to take their comments seriously. The latest (I am informed) is that believing in the paranormal 0r ‘ghostly orbs’ would not invalidate anybodies claims to be a Catholic or Christian. But I never said it would! That’s been conveniently twisted. What I actually said was in answer to an public accusation that I couldn’t have written to a certain priest as I didn’t have his name or the name of his Church. The person conveniently forgot that they had previously given both these names to myself, and had endorsed a CD with a label, labelling photographs of ‘ghostly orbs’ they claimed to have taken in this Priest’s Church. What absolute hypocrisy! And then carrying on claiming to be a ‘good Christian’! Well, I happen to believe in God as well, but at least I don’t try to fool my own consciousness!

So good riddance to the person’s silly Blog; that’s all I can say. Maybe now (or when) we’ll all get some peace!

I WILL give more details on the mentioned Talk everyone. But it was pretty long and I really need more time to write about it.
Next Brighton!

For the moment,


18 Responses

  1. David– I have lost the plot, whats being said where and by whom about who–if that is gramamtically correct which I doubt. Glad you had a good talk, it is a wonderful buzz when you get a good reception, which I

  2. always do though some are more wonderful that others! Sorry for the dickipoggy which interevened and cut this in half, you can privately e mail me with any sleaze as naturally I dont want to mess up your blog with all this ridiculousness which sounds to be still going on–though it had all fizzled out!
    tata barbara

  3. There is no ‘plot’ really Barbara, that’s the whole point!
    If there is any ‘plot’ at all, it is the same old one that you already know about: some embittered woman keeps referring to myself as her ‘ex’ and then carries on with nasty and untruthful comments. Just as the person was doing before when you knew them.
    The person just can’t seem to understand that I am nobidies ‘ex’. I do not belong to anybody, and never have done. Well, only one person.
    I guess that just about sums it up!
    Speak later,

  4. basically barbara its your old mate from up north.
    the one with teeth a druid could worship under.
    she started another blog. i got sent a link tonite and its the usual drivel and rubbish.
    i might start a blog myself called kissingtheampleforthmonks.
    i think druid teeth and lord bishop dickhead are trying to see who can create as many blogs as possible filled with as much toss as possible about how neither of them care about david.
    dickhead is winning at the moment.
    i wanna know whatever happened yto peroxide!
    s/he went a bit quiet all of a sudden.
    i still rate dawwih as a good one not that i’m picking sides, but its nice to see what somebody else spots.

  5. Thanks guys–I might take a look round, but I have a lot to do today like 8.30 mass then my garden for starters, thank goodness all that decorating is done–it looks great if I say so mesen!I’ve also loads of other stuff to do on ye computer, research and some replies, then a trip to the swimming pool at the hotel–its very posh! yesterday we all went swimming with the grandchildren and then to the rugby. I miss my dog very much(rip Oct 2007) but dont think I will get another as I want to do some serious travelling and I cant replace the darling boy.We are doing well with the Ladies book, but thats another tory–it caused a stink up here in certain quarters, all good for the sales! Its great being retired, I havent missed work a bit, it was getting awful anyway with all these pipsqueak managers who know knowt!
    tata barbara

  6. What picture is that David–the one at your humble abode? Whats going on forsooth! More dastardly deeds on the net by the dickipoggy duo?
    I have had a busy day painting my cupboards, wow!

  7. Hi Alex
    I have emailed you the link you wanted.
    The picture of Barbara and the ‘dumpling eater’ is in fact my copyright. Just more evidence of the hyporcrisy.
    Have fun!

  8. Yes one in my humble abode Barbara which the person stole off the Internet.
    I’ll send you the link soon although the other person said she was removig that material today.
    I think its a case of that old addage proving true i.e. ‘If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen’! And that person sure can’t stand it when a few ‘home-truth’s are told. They just run off trying to use the Church as a shield. The person might well be trying to fool themselves, but I don’t think God is fooled so easily!
    Have to find the link again for you and will send – that’s if the untruthful accusations are still there.
    Speak soon,

  9. I don’t care whose copyright it is, that “bonky” web site is quite mad. I note many old photos of The Evil David Farrant engaged in Evil Satanic hocus pocus, and I wonder just how many were photographed by b-b-b-bonky himself? (And that begs the question, why was HE there in the same room with so many Luciferian goings-on? And why was The Dumpling in attendance if the situation was so Un-Godly and Pagan?)

    1. To be fair to the individual, Cat, she has never met Bonky. Although she may just as well have done (if not in actual person) as she was in regular contact with him by email and posting on his ‘one-man’ Board and I fear his ‘Satanic evil’ has rubbed off on her nevertheless!
      Most of the pictures posted on that Board (and elsewhere) were pictures taken by Mr. Bonkers himself; mainly that, or he lifted them from television appearances (by myself) and simply ‘doctored’ them (giving me ‘vampire fangs’, for example).
      My God! Talk about childish! Well, its the sort of thing 8-year-old kids do at school, isn’t it?!
      But the Dumpling certainly aided and abetted such behaviour, by lending her public support to it.
      Do you know Cat, I really find it difficult to fathom peoples’ mentality sometimes!
      At least you are just straight-forwardedly crude and mad, but at least you don’t lie and are not devious.
      That’s why I like you, dear Cat. Or if not exactly ‘like’, can tolerate you! And you can take that as a compliment!
      For the moment,

  10. “I wonder just how many were photographed by b-b-b-bonky himself?”
    exactly what i was thinking mate.
    anyway i found another website – just add fugly’s name to the front of it and this is what you find.
    Your first name: Cathy Fugly
    Indicate your gender: female
    Age: 36
    Aim of relationship:
    Find penpal
    Marriage, start a family
    Regular sex together
    i shit you not!
    what a revolting thought.
    unfortunately she didnt add that smiling gurning foto with her druid teeth on show but oh well.

  11. What does that mean exactly Craig? The person has just moved location again? Well, I’m not even going to look.
    No doubt I’ll be mentioned yet again and get some query about it though. I seem to get the blame for everything now – at least as far as those two individuals are concerned!
    So, I’ll give it a miss all the same. That is until I’m notified again; which no doubt I will be!
    What I rerally want to know is; if that person is so involved with the Church now, then why feel the need to keep mentioning me?! I made it quite clear on June 12 2007 that I just wanted to forget the whole thing. ‘He’ never will, and apparently ‘she’ is unanble to do so as well, or to realise that he is just using herself to continue it.
    What a sad world it can be sometimes!
    For the moment.

  12. tee hee , I have seen the photo, JPL has his arm round me the naughty man! Well he was only being mately in case anyone has dickipoggy thoughts! I was staying at the hotel over the road and doing Robin Hood research when I gave a lift down to Londimium to to David’s biggest fan–then! Of course it is made to look nudge nudge wink wink, as the master and mistress of porkies, propoganda and innuendo as well as pompus hyberbole , hypocrisy ,stupidity and downright nastiness, fully intend.
    as you say David, I cant be bothered to read all that stuff again and nobody–except themselves– seem interested either in it either. They are going round in ever decreasing circles–need I say more!

  13. ps as a comitted Roman Catholic sex outside of marriage is not condoned, you would not be able to receive communion if in a state of lust or however it is described.

    1. PS “As a comitted Roman Catholic sex outside of marriage is not condoned, you would not be able to receive communion if in a state of lust or however it is described”
      I guess that really makes you wonder, how some other people can take it (Holy Communion) then??? !!
      They might not be actually ‘doing anything’, but the ‘carnal thoiughts’ are still there, I don’t doubt!
      Can somebody answer me that? Been wondering about it for a long time?!

  14. As I understand it David you have to be in a “state of grace”–if you have doen things the church disapproves of you should not take Communion. In the RC anyway, the the bread and wine is the “true presence.” I re-read the e mail about the blog and see that the regular sex comes after marriage–again, as a RC, you would have no contraception and you would be expected to add to the RC population by producing a baby a year if you were capable, so yes, reular sex after marriage would eb pricipally an obligation before a pleasure. I am a bit hazy on it as its not on my agenda anymore–thank goodness—but I think that is the gist of it. So regular sex after mairrage between RC’S, OR an RC woman and a non-Catholic man, would still be required to “do their duty”–not to do so would be another sin, in just having dickipoggy for enjoyment which isnt the point, RC WISE.
    Are you awake early of been awake all night?
    To summarise if you take Communion when not in a “state of grace” I think it is a sin, but I arent sure, or you could choke on the host if youw ere in s state of mortal sin–well thats what used to be thought in witch-hunting times.
    If you have like, er raided the biscuit tin, or told a few fibs, or been nasty to someone—I think these are minor sins–I must admit I arent too clear on it–ie between confessions you must accumulate sins, big or small…………
    tata for now, goodnight or is it goodmorning!

  15. PS For Barbara,
    I am only talking about people in general, of course! Not people from beautiful Yorkshire – including ‘dumpling eaters’, of course!
    Speak soon,

  16. Hi Barbara,
    You said (among other things) . . .
    “Are you awake early of been awake all night?”
    What do you think!!? I never get up at that outregeaous time – unless I’ve been up all night! Writing all through the night in fact.
    I think I’d better stay off that ‘sex before marriage’ doctrine in the official Catholic Church, with that cat around! All I can say to that is, my first wife was a Roman Catholic and we were married in a RC church when she was 7 monthe ‘out of wedlock’! The priest allowed this and he also knew that my mother had been a spiritualist. You see Priests are only human at the end of the day – that’s if they are told the truth from the beginning, of course!
    Speak soon,
    PS Really AM a bit tired now!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


1946 - 2019




From the vaults ...

A flashback to one of David’s comedic, profound or quizzical blog entries. Dive into the archives to find more gems.