Thursday, 7 October 2010

Claims And Communications

David Farrant's ex-girlfriend Catherine Fearnley.

Catherine Fearnley posted the following on her blog:

"Received yet another threatening email from FOBSM, along the same lines as the others.  They must be getting desperate for me to remove my interview, why?  That is the whole point.  This is the first time since 2007 that I have spoken out against any of this garbage and look what happens all hell lets loose?  Again this points out as to why?  What is everyone so scared of especially FOBSM.  They think that they can threaten innocent people who have been party to victimisation from both sides of the feud.  Well they have picked on the wrong one with yours truly.  I have said that unless Bishop Manchester emails or writes to me himself then I will not answer any more emails/letters from the FOBSM.  End of.  I’m sick of it all.  I was hoping that the interview would put everything to rest, seems I was wrong.  Still I can handle just about anything that life throws at me.  I’ve had to.  I’ve had literally received death threats, pamphlets published about me containing personal correspondence, including indecent photos taken of me.  Harassment on the internet where I am named in full.  So come on everyone if you want to have a go, now is the chance. This blog is open to all comments.  But I can choose as to which ones I have online." 

FoBSM attempted to post a comment on Miss Fearnley’s blog in response. It did not appear. Here is the censored reply she did not want anyone to see:

Nothing whatsoever of a threatening nature was sent to you by us. You are invited to reproduce anything deemed by you to be threatening in any of the emails sent over the last day or so.

You made very serious allegations against Bishop Manchester while providing someone who stalks and harasses the bishop with ammunition. You were asked why you were doing this, as the bishop has not attacked you and neither have any of his colleagues.

We understood you had agreed no longer to attack the bishop after ceasing to be part of your ex-boyfriend’s vendetta. We merely asked what has happened for you to resume your attacks?

Bishop Manchester has done absolutely nothing to warrant your renewed aggresion; especially as on 25 July 2007 you wrote to him: “I would like to try and build some sort of reconciliation between us.” How do your present unfounded allegations against the bishop assist in the “reconciliation” you spoke of three years ago?

You applied to join groups administered by Bishop Manchester, and you asked to be approved as a friend of Bishop Manchester on Facebook. You even joined Friends of Bishop Seán Manchester at one point. Your communications to the bishop over the last three years do not indicate someone who believes in “keeping clear” of Bishop Manchester and his supporters, as you advise others to do in your interview with Anthony Hogg, a man who has a knack of making an already bad situation much worse. So what happened to change the status quo over the last three years when you apologised for behaviour meted out to the bishop, and asked to start afresh? Bishop Manchester has only responded to your many messages to advise you to ignore your ex-boyfriend as best you can and to try and put the past behind you. You agreed with him on this until now. What changed?

The only thing you might possibly have construed to be a “threat” was our reminding you of the laws of libel which in light of the circumstances is a reasonable thing for us to do. The onus is always on the libeller to prove what has been claimed. If sued for libel the libeller would need to prove beyond any doubt and to the satisfaction of a court that Bishop Manchester, as you claim, perpetrated a hoax to make money. Can you do this? The libeller would also need to provide evidence to support the claim that the bishop wants to hurt and threaten people, as stated by you in your interview. Can you do this? The libeller will also need to prove beyond any doubt that Bishop Manchester is a crazy person. Do you think you can prove that beyond any doubt? If not, why state it in an interview on the internet? This is not a threat and should not be viewed as such. It is extremely good advice.

Unfortunately, Miss Fearnley conveniently omits to mention that the “death threats, pamphlets published about me containing personal correspondence, including indecent photos taken of me” were entirely courtesy of her ex-boyfriend, Mr Farrant, and absolutely nobody else. Why does she fail to make this clear, especially as these are very serious allegations? The self-published pamphlet recently distributed by Mr Farrant also maligns and defames Bishop Manchester, as does almost everything he produces. It does not take a genius to work out who is at the root of all the trouble. If only Miss Fearnley would re-focus her attention in that direction and not in Bishop Manchester’s.

Next, FoBSM received a threatening email from Miss Fearnley about someone calling themselves BlackOrchid, a female who is personally acquainted with Mr Farrant, posting on a variety of forums in support of him. She appears as Clarmonde on Mr Farrant’s own blog and sometimes as Luci elsewhere. Another of Mr Farrant’s associates, Barbara Green, has recently adopted the pseudonym GreenOrchid on a forum where Miss Fearnley has just appeared as BlueOrchid. Miss Fearnley offers this explanation on the forum in question: “The reason I chose my name is that it’s a Glenn Miller song, but it kind of matches with BlackOrchid and GreenOrchid. Very floral.” Could the song possibly be Too Close For Comfort? Moreover, why would she want to match two people who are allies of the same Mr Farrant she wants nothing to do with?

The increasingly paranoid Miss Fearnley is now accusing us of “impersonating” her and “hacking” into her computer. These are serious allegations and naturally ones FoBSM totally refute. They indicate the state of Miss Fearnley’s mind. We have at no time hacked into her computer. We would not know how to even if we wanted to, and we would not want to. Miss Fearnley is of no interest to us and we would not be discussing her now were it not for her unprovoked and unnecessary assault on the character of Bishop Manchester. Now we are receiving harassing and threatening emails from her. Such a person Anthony Hogg relies upon to “discredit” the bishop. 

—– Original Message —–
Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2010 5:53 PM
Subject: Yet evidence of further harassment

Dear Sirs,

This post is somewhat worrying.

"Firstly, is that you Sean? Secondly, I see you have , Anthony, done an interview with Catherine Fearnly? I personally wouldnt trust this person further than I could throw them?Recently, I dont know how, this person, who is to all intensive [sic] purposes, a stranger to me, found out my email address, then sent me a completely unsolicited very nasty email! Quite what i had done to this woman, a complete stranger to me, astonished me. I do not even know her. But evidently this woman sees it as proper and acceptable behaviour to verbally abuse complete strangers.?!!! What a strange world we live in. BlackOrchid."

This has appeared since I have been in contact with you.  I do not know who BlackOrchid is.  More to the point I do not wish to know, I have not sent any abusive emails to her nor do I wish to.  However because I gave that interview to Anthony Hogg the other day, I now believe that you are ‘impersonating’ me on the internet and have hacked into my email system yet again.

I am deleting all my email addresses and if I find out that it is you or anyone to do with your group, then there will be hell to pay.

Catherine Fearnley

Angie Marie Watkins' (BlackOrchid's) post on a supernatural forum refers to Bishop Manchester who was not a participant on the forum, and then addresses Anthony Hogg, warning him about Catherine Fearnley. Miss Watkins' allegation, like so many of her allegations, was invariably directed at the wrong people. She had blamed the bishop before Miss Fearnley came into the firing line. The real culprit turned out to be an old schoolfriend of Miss Watkins herself. It would be a while before she owned to the mistake. Miss Watkins' (BlackOrchid's) admission months later was nevertheless posted on the forum after considerable trouble had already been caused with David Farrant's open encouragement and initial false accusations for her benefit. Unlike Mr Farrant, however, Miss Watkins owned up to her error:

"There was no deliberate attempt to lie about Catherine. My good friend from school, Mary Frances Pratt, had gone with me to visit Mr Farrant. Her behavoir was nevertheless rather bizarre, as whilst I was talking to Mr Farrant, she got up and went out of the room, never to return. For what reason, I couldn't explain, but before she went with me to visit Mr Farrant she said she had been 'told' by 'someone' never to go into Mr Farrants house. She later told me that she and Catherine were friends who knew each other well. Then the emails arrived from someone who said they were Catherine. I told Mary Frances I did not want these emails, and her explanation was 'Its just the way Catherine is.' But she promised to tell her to stop. About a month after this, pictures of me at school were put on the internet by someone with a Facebook page claiming to be me. They, in fact, were not me, and I knew that the person who had done it was Mary Frances because bits of conversations were used that were only known to myself and her. So who did send the emails? I will never know, as after she admitted putting my school pictures on Facebook, I never spoke to Mary Frances Pratt again. And haven't since. So bits of the jigsaw will always be missing to me? BlackOrchid."

FoBSM feel totally justified in publishing harassing and threatening emails it receives from people who make false allegations about either us or Bishop Manchester. We will not be intimidated by rumour-mongers and those with darkness in their soul, and warn anyone of a mind to harass us by making idle threats that we will always call their bluff and expose their behaviour.

FoBSM received yet another harassing email from Miss Fearnley. It begins “Not only that,” which must refer to her earlier unwelcome email which contained threats. She now absurdly accuses us of having hacked into her blog because she was unable to find it at the time of sending her email, which appears below. The fact that a number of blogs have been made by her since sending the email suggests she did eventually find her blog and that nobody hacked into it. No apology has been forthcoming for yet again wrongly accusing FoBSM of something we did not do.
—– Original Message —–
Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2010 5:59 PM
Not only that but I find that I’ve had my blog hacked into and cannot use this anymore, funny thing is that this happened to ‘peroxides’ blog.  So now, not to worry I shall simply create a new one or play around with this until I get this working again.  So you won’t get the better of me I shall simply start again.

Within a matter of days after sending these emails where the above statements are made, Miss Fearnley applied to be a friend of Bishop Manchester on Facebook, and, more hypocritically, also applied to join the Friends of Bishop Seán Manchester Facebook group. Neither application was successful.