"Paranormal" Podcasters Ben and Pete

 

Listen to this risible podcast by two millennial dimwits called Ben and Pete, by clicking above. It could be Pete and Dud except for the fact that they, at least, were entertaining. But it's Ben and Pete. Ben is boring and ordinary. Pete's voice, however, is not dissimilar to E L Wisty (the Peter Cooke character).

“I have learned from my mistakes, and I am sure I can repeat them exactly.”

“As I looked out into the night sky, across all those infinite stars, it made me realize how insignificant they are.”

This unimaginably dull duo claim to operate from "a studio in a haunted pub near Oxford" that just happens to be named "Welch." The vintage image of the pub used on their heading no longer exists, and what replaces it is not called "Welch," an individual once loosely connected to a group that became the precursor of the Vampire Research Society (founded on 2 February 1970). 

People have been asking how is it possible for A Tale of Two Hunters to get so much monumentally wrong unless it is deliberate? With or without an agenda, it must be difficult to be factually incorrect for 99.9% of what one says in a podcast that lasts one hour and three minutes. The answer might be more prosaic, despite seemingly synchronistic allusions hither and thither on the general podcast elsewhere. The fact is that when you listen to Ben and Pete it is quite obvious they just don't care what they say. Couple that with a complete lack of professionalism, refusal to do any research of their own, and a reliance on utter garbage found on the internet, put there by equally incompetent individuals too young to have been around when the events were happening. Yet the events were reported at the time. This makes the claim that nobody showed up on Parliament Hill in 1973 inexcusable. In fact, one of the parties did turn up. It was reported in the Hampstead & Highgate Express, as well as elsewhere. And since when did Highgate N6 become Crouch End N8? The truth is that Ben and Pete simply don't care about the facts. They just want to talk amongst themselves whilst sneering and putting those they are talking about down; blocking the surviving person so he cannot see what they have published. It's rather pathetic and all too redolent of commentators today.

Podcast Copyright Violation

 

Quantum Leap Into The Dark

 

"I have reached out to the remaining person alive, which is the Reverend Manchester, for an interview, and I haven't had the most positive of responses; so I'm not certain he wishes to talk about this any further. ... I think I upset him by approaching him the wrong way via a social media channel." — Ben (an erstwhile anonymous podcaster who does no research, repeats unsubstantiated garbage found on the internet courtesy of trolls and extremely antipathetic individuals, who shamelessly steals copyrighted material and spams it across numerous social media platforms, whilst defaming his subject and mocking the case of the Highgate Vampire in the process.)

Let's be clear, Ben (or whatever his name is) did not approach †Seán Manchester. What happened five days' ago is that he applied to join a private Q&A group that does not accept anonymous members. Ben was unwilling to confirm his real name, and refused to answer any questions related to membership of this private group that provides access to †Seán Manchester. Hence he was not able to gain entry to the group due to wanting to remain completely anonymous. In his podcast, Ben refers to an online magazine called VICE. Francisco Garcia-Ferrera of VICE joined †Seán Manchester's group, had no problem getting answers to all his questions, and thanked the Bishop for his help. Moreover, †Seán Manchester reminded Garcia-Ferrera: "Please be cognisant of the fact that you may always ask further and/or supplementary questions for the purpose of clarification."

Therefore, Quantum Mechanics Podcast's, ie Ben's, allegation that he hasn't "had the most positive of responses" is a falsehood. There was no response beyond him being asked to answer the questions necessary to join the Q&A group whereby he would have been able to put his questions.

The Highgate Vampire - A Tale of Two Hunters

"We investigate a story that gripped the UK in the 1970s. It starts with multiple reports of a vampire in London's Highgate Cemetery. Angry mobs armed with stakes, clash with police. Two rival vampire hunters come forward, one a self proclaimed bishop and exorcist, the other a pagan magician. As their hunt intensifies the two men become bitter rivals, until one claims to have killed the vampire. It's not a movie script, It's a true story!"

All we really know is that this cowardly liar who made the podcast a few hours ago might be called "Ben." We only know that because his equally dim co-host slipped up and referred to him as "Ben."

Ben claims the following: "I have reached out to the remaining person alive, which is the Reverend Manchester, for an interview, and I haven't had the most positive of responses; so I'm not certain he wishes to talk about this any further. ... I think I upset him by approaching him the wrong way via a social media channel." What social media channel? This is a lie. Bishop Manchester was not approached by anyone called Ben. The Bishop deals with queries proffered by outside enquirers. (it is widely known that Bishop Manchester does not give media interviews per se, and has not done so since 2011 for television and radio, and 2013 for all the remainder), but is willing to set the record straight on just about anything for an individual, including reporters, but will not countenance a formal interview.

He even has a private group for this explicit purpose, but it's not the non-existent group that Ben refers to in his podcast. There is no need to concoct a fictitious group when the Bishop's private Q&A group is so easily found at: https://www.facebook.com/groups/seanmanchester

Ben reveals during his rambling podcast that he doesn't know what the Old Catholic Church is, and, moreover, that he "can't find out," which is nonsense, and points to how ignorant and lazy he is. Furthermore, Ben confirms that he hasn't read The Highgate Vampire, which is hardly surprising when you consider that every statement Ben makes is erroneous and factually incorrect. 

Here are a few examples:

We are misinformed that Farrant got in first with his letter to the Ham & High, whereas Bishop Manchester wrote to the newspaper second. In fact, the Bishop did not write a letter to the newspaper. They wrote a feature article for their front page that was gleaned from an informal and off the record chat he had with the Ham & High's editor who had asked him to call by after hours. This he did, but he did not expect to be splashed all over the newspaper's front page under the headline Does A Wampyr Walk In Highgate? on 27 February 1970. David Farrant was not mentioned once in the feature article. Furthermore, none of this was a result of him writing a letter to the editor for publication.

Ben claims that the Bishop called the final resting place of the Highgate Vampire the House of Dracula, gives the wrong year for the vampire's exorcism, and also the wrong location. He also said that the location could no longer be found, and that the address was not disclosed. Notwithstanding the property's development in later years, its address in Avenue Road N6 on the borders of Highgate and Hornsey was always known. Bishop Manchester's books even provide photographs of it. As for the term House of Dracula, this was never used by the Bishop. It was coined by the Hornsey Journal.

Ben's "coverage" is so sloppy and badly researched that it is worthless, and, of course, misleads.

We still need to unmask who Ben really is because he has broken the law on several counts.

He refers to Bishop Manchester as "a self proclaimed bishop," which is untrue, libellous and in clear breach of the various anti-religious discrimination laws, plus the Equality Act 2010. Bishop Manchester was episcopally consecrated by three Old Catholic Bishops before a congregation in a large church. That being the case, how is he remotely "self proclaimed"?

Any insinuation that Bishop Seán Manchester is anything other than a bona fide Bishop cannot be entertained with a degree of seriousness. For example, when a complaint was made to the Broadcasting Standards Commission (Ofcom):

"The Commission notes that the intention of 101.4 Angel FM had been to clarify Bishop Manchester’s position and that they had not intended to suggest that he was not a real bishop. The Commission further notes that the announcement was prepared only during the live transmission [of an interview recorded some weeks earlier] and the broadcaster’s admission that 'confusion' as to his status could have been avoided had wider research been conducted. In the Commission’s view, the back announcement was unfair in that it did not reflect Bishop Manchester’s status as a properly consecrated bishop of the Old Catholic Church, unjustifiably raising doubts in listeners’ minds as to his standing. In this, the Commission finds unfairness to Bishop Manchester."

Signed 1 October 2002 

Ms Maggie Redfern

Ms Kath Worral

The Right Rev’d Richard Holloway

While Ben and his co-host, to all intents and purposes, remain completely anonymous, They have published accompanying images of Bishop Manchester on their podcast that are his lawful copyright. Ben has therefore infringed his protected pictures, and is in clear breach of copyright law.

Ben also provides links for further reading. The one ostensibly aimed at reading what Bishop Manchester has to say is at least a decade or so out of date, and does not function. The other link the podcast provides is to a Facebook group run by someone who stalks and trolls the Bishop.

"It's not a movie script. It's a true story!" says Ben (on his podcast blurb). His version is anything but the truth. How could it be? He has never contacted the person at the centre of this history, lies about everything, hasn't read The Highgate Vampire, and provides a link to an antipathetic troll.

                  CLICK ON BOOK COVER FOR MORE DETAILS