RIP + David Farrant 1946 - 2019 +

The Human Touch Blog ~
David Farrant

What A Night!

What a night it was last night, writing wise.

OK Fairly warm and comfortable, with some glasses of wine to sip; but even with Gareth to help me sort through papers and type, it just brings back horrible memories writing about that Trial and some of the things the witnesses claimed – in open Court that is. Ironically, most of them didn’t know any of the true facts but were just being influenced by the suggestions of a particular Police Inspector who was blindly convinced that anything to do with Wicca and White Magic was all really the work of the devil and that that anybody who was involved in it, was really worshipping the devil! What ignorance it was really all based on. Assumptions, counter assumptions and suggestions all geared to somehow prove this wrongful premise.

In reality, times have really not changed since the Middle Ages – at least, the basic human psyche has not.. You’d think after some 400 years or so human beings would have got over their barbaric superstitions and become more civialised in the modern world. Not so! All this took place in the 20th century when people might have – or should have – realised that ‘witches’ didn’t really fly through the air on boomsticks or ‘change their enemies into frogs’!

You think I’m kidding? Well, when you read the 2nd Volume of my autobiography, you will see!

Yes. Human ignorance and superstition still goes on today. And not only just in England, but all across the world. It is even prevalent in the modern Christian Church – but then again it was the early Church that started or encouraged the early ‘witch hunts’.

Anyway we worked for a few hours going through the paper-work before deciding to give it a rest. Then I brought Gareth up to date with all the news; not least by showing him the article Barbara sent me on Robin Hood – or maybe that should read . . . “The Kirklees Conspiracy”! He thought it was very good, and said if you want any quotes or further information, Barbara he’d be happy. So ‘just go for it’, good lady. Get another book done!

Now, I found out who that beautiful girl was. How? Because I met her again this afternoon. She was at my recent Talk. I knew she seemed familiar buts that’s only because I must have seen her in the audience. But anyway, I know her name and phone number now AND she’s invited me to phone her. She’s not married or anything – she made that clear – but she is interested in the subject and would love to discuss it further sometime.

Well, I guess I’d better go and put my feet up for a while. Not too tired really; just a bit mentally shattered!

For the moment,


38 Responses

  1. A few years ago David , I had really horrible neighbours and they decided to pick on me because I was “a woman alone”. One of their main taunts was to call me “witch” cos I lived alone and had a few cats. They got the neighbourhood brats at it too. It was in 2000, I remember the Millenium coincided and I thought things are still very primitive, they were obviously scared of me for some reason, or didnt like me as they were very thick and rough—though normally I dont have any problems with any type of person, but this couple were really in a league of their own. I think you know the story. I got them out anyway, I tape recorded them threatening me secretly and someone who shall remain nameless erm chucked a bottle with their names in down the River Thames–whether it was that or my tapes I dont know, but the police would not do anything till I had proof. I just wrote this to give an example of how very much back in the Middle Ages people can behave at times, when they decided to pick on someone—like a “woman alone-with a cat” stereotype, and I am sure they would have happily burnt me at the stake if they could have done, for no reason whatsoever. The witch label then resuurfaced with accusations from the land of bonkdom saying I was a witch as well–well actually that had been rumbling a long time, from the disgruntled one, and it was picked up by The Kirklees Kap Doffer KONDOM king–kkkk— and his “accomplices” and recycled, as we know. I have never read such rubbish and claptrap as circulated around the message boards as these guys churned out.
    So yes David I know what you mean. Regards to Sir Gareth, I have tried the artcile at the NEWS OF THE WORLD! haha!! It si supposed to be getting published in a new book but I can still re-vamp it for elsewhere, did you get the third person version which had the Excorcism written up fully? I will transfer that into the first person one which obvioulsy reads better as a proper artcile,
    tata barbara

    1. I have said many times Barbara that human nature has changed very little over the centuries when it comes to the Unknown. I said on that radio broadcast very recently that people tend to fear that which they cannot understand; and that which they fear, they ultimately condemn. This has always been the case, and always will be the case until people acheive a better understanding of human consciousness, that is their OWN consciousness.
      Religious fanatics (no offence to you because note I used the word ‘fanatics’) are worse because when you introduce God and the ‘devil’ into the situation, this fear can be magnified toan almost alarming degree. People take solace in God, often without a scrap of love for others in their hearts. They try to use God as some sort of ‘personal avenger’; but it is always to do their own personal will at the cost to other people.
      This happened in times past, and it still goes on today.
      I once wrote in a book . . . “People no longer burn witches, that is true, but theywould think little – probably nothing – of accrediting them with the same crimes and absurdities of which they stood condemned so long ago”.
      So yes, I do know what you mean!
      Unfortunately I could not open that attached file so when you get time please send that again.
      For the moment,

    1. Quick reply sorry. No it was the one without Gareth in it at all. But I told him you’d be including him!
      For now

  2. Really! Thank you Alan, I wasnt reading her facebook so was unaware. The promise box article was not nasty, it was mildly humorous–I’ll e mail David a copy he can post it on here if he wants. That was not the reason we were stopped from doing the magazine, the reason was because of her indelicate blog about David’s erm well, you know. Its as simple as that.
    tata barbara

  3. David–I have posted the promise box article onto you to judge for yourself. It was never intended for the magazine, although someone suggested it was highly entertaining, I said no it was a bit too close to home with the Betty character, though in no way “nasty “–she was just mildly possessive of her territory in a way that I found more amusing the annoying. So it was absolutely never up for publication. You can post the article if you want but it would entail removing a certain name, so I doubt it worth the trouble. The reason we were both stopped from both the magazine and the webpage was as you have stated.
    thanks for clearing that up

    1. Well, thank you Barbara. Yet another lie exposed!
      The list seems to be endless. I bet she doesn’t mention these when she goes to Confession!
      Yes, please post the article and I’ll have a read.
      For now,

  4. ps I take excellent care of myself and have never felt better, despite the asthma attack. Today I went swimming with my grandaughter–we go twice a week, we are going Youth hostelling soon and I have several trips planned including one abroad. I am in demand for public speaking, visit a blind lady in a care home, support several animal charities and attend church, various lectures and craft events– WITH MY PROMISE BOXES. I have a very varied and full life, with family and friends, plus I keep up my writing projects, mainly Robin Hood and nursing stuff,
    tata barbara

  5. It makes you quite cross to see how things are twisted to mean something else from what actually happened. I know his bonkyness does it all the time, but his modus spreads to his pals , inciting them to distort and lie, even about something to as inncoent as a b****** promise box and a church magazine . Does she do it from faulty memory or it is deliberate to make me–in this instance—sound like the villain of the piece. Its the witchy house all over again.
    Still who cares, tiresome girl,

    1. I wouldn’t worry about it too much Barbara – and before you have a ‘go’ at me, I am really not being ‘condesending’, believe me!
      No, I am so used to it now that I hardly worry about it They certainly make a good pair! Lying seems to have come ‘second- nature’ to her now.
      If it is any consolution, they are only fooling themselves. They are not fooling God!
      For the moment,

  6. Isn’t CF worried that with all the Catholics and Catholic priests that she has as friends on her facebook, that at least one of them will know ‘HER’ priest,and inform him, that she is still blogging away.The parish magazine saga as she describes below, is not quite the same one, she initially told!!
    I am not a friend of CF on facebook, but my cousin is, and he copied details below for me. Who is Arminius? I normally just read the blogs like a lot of people, but I thought this took the biscuit.
    Copied and pasted from CF’s. facebook.
    Topic: Parish Magazine
    Reply to Topic
    Displaying all 5 posts by 2 people.
    Post #1
    Arminius Vámbéry (Hungary) wroteon May 30, 2009 at 5:26pm
    Referring to you, Catherine, David Farrant claims:
    “… she’s already been reprimanded in that direction and banned from writing the Parish magazine …”
    (May 30th, 2009 at 6:18 pm)

    What can he mean?
    Reply to ArminiusReport
    Post #2
    Catherine F. wrote on June 1, 2009 at 2:42pm
    I was not banned from writing the parish magazine, actually it was Barbara Green who got us both banned for an article that she wrote whilst we were in Walsingham about selling her promises boxes plus also what she wrote about someone who wouldn’t sell them in our Parish shop. This is why our priest wouldn’t allow me to publish the magazine at all. Nothing more, nothing less. I have Barbara to thank for that. The parish magazine would have been a good idea, but no Barbara had to go and spoilt it as per normal. Because all Barbara was doing was making nasty comments about others and they could have quite easily been recognised and the comments could have upset them.
    Sorry for not having written by the way as I have no computer at the moment yet again and am having to rely on the library twice a week. It will be a fortnight before it’s fixed.
    Hope to be online soon. Keep me posted on everything. God bless
    Reply to Catherine Report
    Post #3
    Arminius Vámbéry (Hungary) wroteon June 1, 2009 at 2:57pm
    Barbara Green has spoilt so much for so many with her nasty comments.
    She really needs to get a life – even at this late stage in her life where she is in her mid-sixties and in questionable health according to her own rants on Farrant’s incredibly puerile blog.
    Reply to ArminiusReport
    Post #4
    Catherine F. wrote on June 4, 2009 at 2:27pm
    Exactly Arminius
    I couldn’t agree with you more. I’m sorry for not replying sooner, still having to rely on the library, but thank God there are such places for internet connection otherwise it would drive me crazy, but I am unable to order anything online at the moment due to the computers being shared. But will order ‘Bishop’ M’s [sorry name edited, DF]book next week. Farrant has questionable health although he won’t admit it, Green has, really they should take better care of themselves but that is not exactly my problem anymore. It won’t be a great loss to the world that is for sure, maybe to their families but certainly not to anyone else. If there is one thing I hate it’s liars, cheats, and downright evil people who are hell bent on wrecking innocent people’s lives and for what?
    Oh and Farrant just because I have not got many people in this group as friends doesn’t mean I don’t have any, thank you all the same but my life is quite active and I have got a good circle of friends, both in professional theatre, clubs, Church etc etc. I just don’t wish to get them involved with this sordid nonsense if they are not on the internet which quite a lot of them are not.
    Best wishes everyone and have a great weekend.
    Reply to Catherine Report
    Post #5
    Catherine F wrote on June 4, 2009 at 2:29pm
    Actually when I come to think about it, this is twice now I’ve taken the flack for something she has done. It’s all very well hiding behind a computer and saying stuff about me but that is being extremely cowardly I think, not least spreading untruths about me and people whom she doesn’t even know. Very clever.

      Thank you for your post Alan but can I ask you not to post anymore of CF’s Facebook quotes on here. As a matter of fact, I have already seen them as these are automatically forwarded to me privately but I allowed them as they are in the public domain; only I just don’t want to see all the lies here.
      In case you had not realised, the person she is in correspondence with (under the alias “Armimious”) is the person commonly known as “Bishop Bonkers” (a title I believe he was given on the Internet by people in 2007) and C is well aware of this in reality. This is just another one of her most unchristian untruths! Regarding the Parish magazine, she WAS banned from writing this (as was Barbara in fact) mainly because of obscene posts she was putting up on her own Blog concerning myself at the time. The priest was sent copies of pages that she wrote and this was the main reason she was ‘taken off’ the Parish magazine. She was also asked (by the Priest in question) to take this Blog down. She did.
      Earlier this year, she started up another Blog (which she was again forced to remove) and in this she stated to a correspondent that ‘her Ex’ (myself in case you had not guessed) had been personally responsibly for getting her banned from the magazine. I have a printed copy of these pages. I only mention this to show that it is not possible to believe one word that she says.
      Anyway, thank you again for posting here. I was not suggesting that you should not post again. Only asking that, if you do, you just don’t re-paste all the ‘fibs’ she has been telling to people on her Facebook site and elsewhere.
      But apart from that, please do post again if you want.
      For the moment,
      David (Farrant)

  7. “…and in questionable health according to her own rants on Farrant’s incredibly puerile blog.”
    …a puerile blog that u follow religiously eh seanie?
    a blog that u comment on endlessly on ur own pathetic little blog?
    how do i know? simple. i read DAWWIH by the real Overseer and he does a much better job to be honest.
    i love the wayhe tore u a new arsehole recently over another of ur fake alias’.
    by the way, what ever happened to old “Dennis” after i exposed it as a load of shite?
    oh and seanie, how is the whore of venus these days?
    still got the clap?
    “If there is one thing I hate it’s liars, cheats, and downright evil people who are hell bent on wrecking innocent people’s lives and for what?”
    no wonder you hate yourself so much, Fugly.
    by the way why order nonceboys book when u can download all of his rubbish for free?
    Lord Craig of Byron
    51st Earl of Southern

  8. I wonder what the other incident is that she has “taken the flack” for due to me–supposedly. As we have seen , the magazine ban over the promise boxes was a load of tosh so no doubt the other situation, whatever it is, is a load of tosh too. I certainly dont know what it is, unless she is referring to getiing her pandies slapped in the presbytery, but that wasnt my fault, it was, as she has pointed out to me, up to “her” priest what he did when I suggested it would have been more appropriate, and fairer, to see us both together at the presbytery.
    tata barbara

    1. Well, we have it in black and white here now (from her own lips) in what she replied to ‘him’ about the “Promise Boxes” being responsible for her being banned from doing the Parish magazine, was a blatant lie.
      I also have it in black and white where she said to a female correspondent on her old Blog, that her ‘Ex’ had been solely responsible for getting her banned from the magazine project by making a complaint to the Priest.
      Just to set the record straight again, I am nobodies’ ‘Ex’ – although a few ladies apparantly like to think so! Also, I never made a complaint about the Parish Magazine. Far from it, I encouraged her in this project and offerred to help if I could.
      The complaint was about untrue public allegations she was posting up about myself on the Internet, including co-operating with the clearly bonkers one by repeating material he had given her in a book she was boasting to be writing about myself. THAT was the only substance in my complaint and I enclosed copies of her posted material to the Priest to back this up. This material was also sent to other investigating authorities at the time (in 2007) It is not really surprising that she was removed from the project when she was saying I had been found guilty of ‘cinducting naked witchcraft rites in graveyards’!
      She was removed from the magazine project because of remarks like these (including that I was a ‘failure as a lover), and for remarks such as these only.
      To try and twist this and now blame you Barbara for ‘selling Promises Boxes’ when all the money was scheduled to go to the Church in any event, is really quite despicable.
      I received the article you sent me about the Promise Boxes (which was never published anywhere) and see nothing wrong with it – if anything it is highly amusing.
      I may well reproduce this here as it adds further impetus to the lies she is now spreading.
      Well, what else could you expect, I suppose, when she has switched her allegiance to one who is clearly bonkers!
      For the moment,

  9. Thanks David, sorry to inflict the article on you but to prove the point reaslly–its gentle satire, narsty my foot! I wonder if bonky has actuially read it. Still its immaterial, the point is that to say it was the reason the magazine was scrapped was because of the artcile is a downright barefaced lie and just more evidence of this persons inability to tell the truth Is that what Bonky wants–his spies to feed him lies, which will ultimately end up as egg on his face.
    If necessary we could easily prove this assertion to be a lie, Father ***** being the first witness.
    However, she hasnt even the wit to see that even if I HAD wanted the promise box article to be published in the Church magazine –which I didnt, !—-all Father needed to do was say No Barbara its not suitable and we could still have done the magazine without it. To scrap a magazine over one unsuitable contribution doesnt make sence. Thats what being an Editor is–you choose what you want to put in and reject what you dont, not scrap the whole publication ovr one article.
    Even Bonky must be able to see this basic flaw in the tale. The magazine was scrapped purely because of C’s blog about Davids personal bits, which she was ordered , or at least told firmly, to delete and because the priest had seen these very unladylike relevations, he scrapped US BOTH as editors of the magazine and the webpage. I had contributed to the blog but it wasnt my blog.So dont blame me for the magazine and webpage being scrapped, it was not be as certain people jolly well know and they are either telling deliberate lies or they are completley doo-lally-pip.
    End of!

      I can’t post it all in a reply Barbara as you may appreciate it is too long. But I thought people might like to see the last part of your article which Pudding is now trying to convince Bonky was responsible for her being banned for involvement in the Parish magazine.
      Here it is so people can judge the truth for themselves . . .
      You would have thought we were trying to sell crack cocaine to the shopkeepers of Walsingham , but, undeterred, our next stop was the Tourist Information shop where, to our amazement, the lady behind the counter looked pleasantly impressed by our poor, thus far, rejected wares.
      “What a lovely idea! ” she exclaimed, looking at our sample box and taking out one of the scrolls and reading it . “They are beautiful, and so cleverly made. I will certainly let the manager see your leaflet and I’m sure she’ll get in touch with you !”
      Encouraged we dropped a few more leaflets off at the rest of the shops in the High Street later that evening, and returned to Yorkshire the next day, dragging the spurned boxes back with us !
      However, since starting the business in mid-March we had sold 15 ( including two from St Peter’s, despite Betty’s prophesies of doom!) and are gradually covering our expenses, and hopefully will go into a modest profit if and when they “catch on. ”
      But the experiences so far have been rather droll at times, so thought I would write it up ! We wont be beat , as we say in Yorkshire !

      I think if the Priest had seen the whole article, he would have gladly accepted it for the Parish magazine. But he wasn’t told about it so I suppose that we will never know. But then, of course, he wasn’t told a lot of things, was he?!?

  10. Just to confirm- re comments by Arminius Vámbéry
    I am not Barbara Green, I am not David Farrant,or Catherine F. or Sean M. or anyone else in this feud, and do not have any loyalty to any of these groups.
    My ONLY reason for my previous post was because I felt is was unfair to publish so many derogotary posts about people who could not read them (although David Farrant stated above that he has them fowarded on anyway). I am sure most of the Catholic friends on this Facebook are a bit puzzled, as was my cousin, who knows nothing about the feud.
    I also cannot contribute anything else as I am also quite ignorant of the situation, and only know what I have read on various blogsites. I think it may be more honest of Catherine F. to either put the comments on here by way of answering David Farrant’s comments about her-which she says is the reason for her Facebook posts. Alternatively, she can create another website that is public where only people interested in the feud will read it, not sure Facebook is the right site for this sort of thing.
    My last post!!
    NB Thanks Alan. I have had to remove acouple of full names as I do not allow them on here without prior permission. Barbara doesn’t mind as indeed do I so those names can remain.

    1. Just to clarify for you Alan, that nobody has been ‘banned’ on here. If either Catherine or Bonky have anything to say to myself directly here, I will answer it. I will even allow their full names providing they give me prior written permission. An exception to this would be the ‘individual’ calling himself “Arminious” all over the Internet at the moment. Why? Because this is not a genuine person but hiding behind a fake alias. But if he posts under his real name I would allow it.
      But of course these two individuals never will. They are both too cowardly to face me directly so either give fake aliases or talk ABOUT me behind my back as all cowards do of course. So no, they would never dare post on here. They know I have the one thing on my side which neither of them can abide . . . the Truth!
      That Truth could ‘tear them to pieces’ – and they both know it!
      Please post again if you want to. It seems a shame to make such a fleeting visit!
      For the moment
      David (Farrant)

  11. Hi David, thanks for going to the trouble of printing that little section, its hardly Private Eye is it?
    However, just to clarify so their is NO MISUNDERSTANDING, the priest did read it and was amused, but it was absolutely unconnected with the magazine. He saw the proofs for the magazine at every stage, the Promise box article was never included, in fact I categoracally told him that it was just a but of whimsy on my part NOT for publication in the Church magazine, so there is NO ROOM FOR ANY MISUNDERSTANDING of the situation to have arison—indeed it never did, I was told after C had been told off in the presbytery over the blog, that same morning, that both the magazine and the blog had been stopped BECAUSE THE PRIEST COULD NOT RISK HIS PARISIONERS COMING ACROSS OUR NAMES IN CONNECTION WITH SUCH UNSEEMLY INTERNET GOINGS ON AND IT WOULD REFLECT BADLY ON HIS PARISH TO HAVE OUR NAMES ON HIS CHURCH MAGAZINE AND WEBPAGE. BECAUSE OF C’S BLOG.
    That was the reason. Now, Bonky, go back to the drawing board and ask your go-between what the truth really was. It was as both David and I have told you —-he has the priest letters and I have the e vidence of what happened up here as a result of David’s letters. If you really want to prove the case, simply ask the priest!

  12. Quite.
    She will either have to confess to bonky
    a) she was lying or
    b) she got muddled up.
    c) or stick to her story.
    I reckon she will choose “c ” and bonky will go along with it, its easier.
    Fits in with his agenda better. How this squares with her Jesus stuff I don’t quite get.
    I doubt he’ll write to the priest to check her out .
    tata barbara

    1. I doubt if he will either Barbara.
      One thing’s for sure though: Alan was right – the Priest in question may well get to hear of this latest most unChristian untruth, especially as she’s told a public fib on Facebook now. He knows what the real truth is so then she could be in for another ‘rollicking’!
      As I’ve said many times before in relation to the whole sad business . . . “Thou shalt not bear false witness”!
      For now,

  13. You are right David,and now I think about it, the obvious solution is for me to do the deed myself, and get a reply straight from the horses mouth. After all I doubt the priest would be looking on silly Facebooks himself, so unless of course, I get an apology for writing false witness about me on the Internet I might just take it further!

    1. I would Barbara, I really would. After all, its quite a serious accusation that she made against you (to Bonky expectedly) which thousands (well, even millions) of people can see.
      Whatever you decide to do, I will back you 100% over this as it involves the person making yet more untrue allegations (to Bonky) about myself.
      Perhaps ironically, the person has failed to realise that the Priest in question is already on the Internet, and he knows my name already! So the chances of him finding out for himself independently are already extremely high.
      Whatever, just to set the record straight, I may well write to him again myself!
      We’ll see. But I really am so fed up with all the lies she (and ‘he’) keep brandishing around. It really is not very Christian!
      For the moment,

  14. what i want to know is why havent Cat and I been given space on lord bishop nazi dickheads blog?
    aren’t we good enough?
    or is it cos ur still desperately trying to find out where i live by email bombing anyone who will listen to your weedy plight?
    by the way seanie, i bet ur over the moon that the BNP managed to win 2 seats in europe.
    i bet u feel like all ur hitler’s have come at one eh?
    do u and the whore of venus do dress up nazi nights?
    would u like to see a lovely photoshop of u and said whore in full gestapo regalia?
    go on seanie, give us a big smile, sig heil, big smile.
    david, when he used to hang about with u, did he ever mention his fascination with nazi stuff?
    that jacqueline was sporting a massive nazi cross on the 1st edition if i remember correctly.
    barbara, did he ever mention his hitler worshipping to u?
    Lord Craig Byron
    5th Vampire of Highgate

    1. The person not only discussed it with me in detail, Craig, but I have it all on tape. This would have been in 1970.
      I remember once I spotted him in June 1970 canvassing in an election car for the NF Party. Next time I saw him, I asked what he thought he was doing and if he was worried that the Press might find out.
      He was ‘working undercover’ for some ‘secret government department’ (unnamed of course!) and involved on some ‘highly dangerous mission’, he told me!
      The funny thing was he was deadly serious, which made it even funnier! No, in reality he was an active member.

  15. I can’t trouble myself with going all over the internet to read all of the latest drama. The Pudding was banned from placing an article in a “church magazine” because the parish priest read her blog entry where she was complaining about not getting enough satisfaction from David’s naughty bits? Is that near accurate? Well, what does she expect?

    1. Almost correct Cat, but not quite! The Person was banned from doing the Parish magazine completely and taken off the Church Wedsite for false accusations she was making about myself on her old Blog (encouraged 100% by Bonky). The Priest in question strongly advised her to delete this Blog which she did (in 2007).
      Now it appears the person is doing exactly the same thing again on Facebook – encouraged once again by the bonky one. That’s what its really all about!
      For now,

  16. we’ll have to get david in the popemobile to make sure he isn’t at risk from loony tune sniper stalkers.
    “He was ‘working undercover’ for some ’secret government department’ ”
    for someone who claims to have worked undercover, he sure knew how to keep his ugly fat face in the papers.
    and he did such a shit job he got caught out straightaway when using ther alias “ruthven glenarvon” – i mean, Jogn smith would have been too noticable, right?
    Craig Glenarvon

  17. – “what i want to know is why havent Cat and I been given space on lord bishop nazi dickheads blog?”
    Good question! Maybe you can ask him in person. There must be some way to coax him out of that bungalow for a non lethal bit of chat. I’m picturing David strapped to a lie detector seated within a bulletproof glass enclosure carried on the back of a flatbed van parked on Southern Road…

    1. OK. Very funny Cat.
      But lets remember that it was MYSELF who made the challenge to take a lie detector test on the Radio 2 years ago now.
      He has conveniently tried to twist it now (like today) by trying to make out its his idea.
      Just shows how original the guy really is. Can’t do anything without copying me. No wonder he’s known as a plagiarist!

    1. Well, I have to admit Cat that, apart from depicting myself in a ‘Popemobile’ in one of the many southern roads in England, that was really quite funny! I don’t usually appreciate your ‘Cat-brained’ sense of humour, but have to say that that illustration was quite brilliantly done. But why would I need to be inside an ‘armoured vehicle’?
      Us ‘witches’ are in no need of such protection!

  18. Well David I go to “the other church” now and then with my friend when I am quite likely to see the priest in question. Indeed, I saw him personally last year, by chnace, and had a chat with him in person, though not about anything dickipoggy, but I certainly am not “struck off”. I know if I write it will be unacknowledged as he can’t be doing with such nonsence, but at least he would know what was what. Hmmm. I better not hear about any more dickipoggy allegations and stupild untrue stories anyway on the Internet or the ***** will hit the fan. In the meanwhile I have printed it off and may just send it as it is……………

  19. Just a minor point I noticed while copying the posts–I didn’t write the article IN Walsingham, I wrote it after I got home and the lady at the church shop didn’t STOP me selling the boxes there, she hummed and ha-ad and made all kinds of pointleee objections which I simply repeated in the article–so it wasnt being nasty, it was accurate reporting with a bit of gentle humour–“We’ve never had any of those before—–Fred won’t like it (who was “Fred”)—-it will muddle the money up—-those saint pictures wont sell, I’ve never heard of St Winefride etc, I have enough trouble getting rid of the Virgin Mary”—and stuff like that, all with a disapproving air.
    It was all quite funny really, but the boxes still sold, if not like hot cakes they w ere tolerated !
    I used to write a lot of similar pieces for the church magazine where I went before, the Anglican church, all with a bit of humour which more or less wrote itself by observing human nature. Humour is an essential ingredient to writing I think, though I dont like anything to rude or strong. The one great critisism I have of Bonky’s writing is that it is so deadly serious, so boastful and humourless(thats three sorry!) though it does make me laugh it is so ultimately absurd!
    C alas, is no writer, but her posts are transparently full of ill informed,childish accusations , plagiarism and confused cock’n’nbull stories. She is like a computer, programmed by David and Bonky. You could end up with any version of events depending on what mode she is put into. At the moment it is bonkymode so all the stuff coming out has been re-configured to attack David and myself! the same stuff which was used before to attack Bonky but mutated into a different format!

  20. As to the mysterious ‘Arminius’, this name is probably related to ‘Arminian’, which in the seventeenth century referred to those people who rejected the authority of the Pope, but (unlike the Church of England) otherwise remained faithful to Catholic doctrine and practice. I suspect that this man may be affiliated to one of the modern ‘Arminian’ orders, such as the ‘Old Catholic Church’.
    Gareth J. Medway

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.