Friday, 13 April 2012


"It is treachery to go to a sworn enemy of someone you have known as a friend for decades and engage in a collusion to do that friend harm. If he and his wife are being put in danger due to incitements of the kind being made by Kevin Chesham with David Farrant's collusion he has every right to judge the situation and act accordingly because he has a duty to protect his own. Seán Manchester has many, many friends and they know exactly what he represents and believes, which is why he can be so open about matters where others in a similar position would be more coy and circumspect. It is Chesham and Mason who have been in the closet, which might explain their behaviour. If Seán Manchester was also in the closet, these unpleasant people would not be attacking him in the way they are now. They have simply become more extreme with time. Chesham has joined with Farrant and like Farrant is uttering a stream of lies. It is all very well him saying 'On one occasion ... etc' but it is empty rhetoric without some proof that such a thing was said. Others were present, so why didn't they hear any of these claims made by Chesham? I think if you knew the truth about Chesham and how Seán Manchester warned him against his Fascist and LHP occult connections you would begin to see more clearly. Chesham was apparently always fascinated by the Third Reich, but he only came to cultivate an interest in Satanists like Kerry Bolton in recent years."  Vebjørn Hästehufvud (taken from comments made on a McWilliams/Hogg Facebook group where it is discussed.)

"Let's take a look at exactly what the poster reveals about Farrant's views ... Farrant adopts the Nazi slogan 'Germany Awake!' as his own, and converts it to 'Wiccans Awake!' He then calls for 'an end to ritual slaughter.' Who engages in ritual slaughter in the UK? Jews and Muslims! Nobody else conducts this practice in the UK. So who was that particular policy aimed at? He also calls for 'free love' (as practised by the SS?) and Britain quitting the Common Market which has only been championed by parties such as UKIP, the BNP, National Front and just about every other far right group. All this was reflected in the article, but what about the poster the editor was quoting from? It called for the 'outlawing of Communism' and the 'banning of Freemasonry' - all of which are aspirations of neo-Nazi groups like the NF. Farrant also states that he wants to make wicca the 'state religion' which does not bode well for Christians and others who warn against witchcraft." Timelord (taken from the Supernatural World forum where it is discussed.)

Kevin Chesham's incitements and lies have only been spread via the internet by a small handful of people whom I largely identify on the previous blog. They all have their own reasons for doing this, but are they merely random detractors with an axe to grind, or could there be something more sinister afoot?

"As all my friends can attest to, I wouldn't be willing to hurt a fly and I have never used violence against others." (Extract from Anders Behring Breivik's Manifesto)

If something feels and looks wrong it most probably is wrong. The mass murderer Anders Breivik has more or less been taken at face value by most people who would describe him as a "neo-Nazi" even though he was an active member of the Freemasons who openly supported Israel and stated in his writings that he disliked Hitler and the Third Reich. Moreover, throughout his trial in Norway he gave Marxist clenched fist salutes at arm's length in the style of groups such as the Black Panthers. Who picked up on these glaring anomalies? Certainly not the media or interested observers. Breivik, I suspect, was a programmed stooge.

Likewise, Kevin Chesham is not what he nowadays claims to be. In fact, he could not be more removed from it.

Kevin Chesham, Redmond McWilliams  and David Farrant at Highgate Cemetery.

Kevin Chesham (Basildon, Essex), married to Beverley Mason, claims to be a pacifist and a Buddhist despite being employed as a nightclub bouncer prior to his stroke, and putting former friends' lives in danger. He related two occasions, the first last century and the second earlier this century, when he was approached to join the Freemasons. It is more than likely there has been a more recent third occasion.

Kevin Chesham repeats a quote frequently incorrectly attributed to Joseph Goebbels when it was actually Adolf Hitler who used it in Mein Kampf [He attributes it correctly in his private correspondence of 10 December 2001 to Keith Maclean, but incorrectly identifies Goebbels as the source on his blog]: "If you tell a big enough lie and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it." This quote adequately sums up Kevin's modus operandi in one sentence. It can equally be applied to his friend David Farrant whom the judiciary, juries, journalists and many others have described as a pathological liar.
Beverley Mason aka "Raggety Ricketts" (Basildon, Essex), married to Kevin Chesham, claimed all the time I knew her to be a Christian (Church of England), but now claims she was and still is a Buddhist.

Beverley Mason cynically says of the man who drove a flashy American car with personalised number plates and worshipped Mosley: "Financial gain has never been a motivator for Kev. He also hopes however that some readers may choose to make a donation to a charity of his choice, Unite Against Fascism."

David Farrant aka Allan Farrow (Muswell Hill, London), twice divorced, not in a relationship, claims in the past to have been a practitioner of witchcraft, but is regarded by his Luciferian friends to be a Luciferian.

David Farrant says: "Our old friend Kev Chesham gave us a filmed interview about his new book putting across his infiltration of a secret 3rd Reich group in England and subsequent findings which have filled his book. Kev has been instrumental in launching his own Blog in which he says he has yet to reveal more about some 'bonky individuals' who all fit into the story. So please tune in everyone."

Jamie Coster now known as Jamie Farrant (Southampton, Hampshire), unmarried, in a relationship, atheist, anti-Christian and extremely anti-Roman Catholic. Uses excessive profanity, has a sick and blasphemous sense of humour (like his biological father) and indulges in stalking. He is the son of David Farrant from whom he was estranged from 1969  when his mother left his biological father and moved to Southampton  until 2010 when he decided to search out Farrant and join in his vendetta that has persisted since the beginning of the 1970s when Jamie Coster was just three years' old. The rest of Coster's family understandably want no part of Farrant. Jamie Coster published on the internet a private address where I can be found, alongside extreme incitements of hatred containing malicious accusations, including Kevin Chesham's manufactured allegations.

Jamie Farrant says: "I must say [Kevin Chesham's claims] makes very interesting reading ...  it's looking quite grim for Sean [Manchester] at the moment."

Anthony Hogg (Melbourne, Australia), unmarried, not in a relationship, claims to be a non-conformist Christian but evinces extremely unChristian behaviour, eg profanity (I have been referred to as "a fuckin' lowlife" by Hogg). There is not a day that passes where Hogg is not posting harassing comments about me somewhere on the internet. This self-proclaimed non-conformist's cyber-friends are either immersed in witchcraft and the occult, or profess to be atheists. Constantly critical of me because I am a traditionalist, Hogg befriended John Pope, a self-styled "a master of the black arts." I am intrigued to find Hogg distinguishing between Luciferians and Satanists because only an occult-minded non-Christian would make that distinction. "Luciferian" is a euphemism for Satanist and adherents engage in the same unpleasant practices. How do we distinguish between 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, as Pope has been since the early 1970s, doing the same? Not surprisingly, self-styled "Luciferians" and Satanists are frequently found to be associated and supportive of one another. Yet the professed "non-conformist" Anthony Hogg differentiates between Luciferians and Satanists while all other Christians 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 righteous-
ness; whose end shall be according to their deeds.”

2 Corinthians 11: 14 -15

Hogg isseemingly unaware of the Christian understanding that Lucifer, Satan and the Devil are three different names for the same angel. Lucifer refers to this angel when he lived in heaven. Satan and the Devil are names for this angel after he became evil and came to our earth. Lucifer was created by God as a perfect angel. He was called Lucifer while he lived in heaven. After he sinned and persistently refused to repent he was thrown out of heaven. When Lucifer was cast out of heaven he lost his name Lucifer and became known as Satan.

Satan is the name that is used for Lucifer after he was thrown out of heaven. He is also called the Devil. Satan is now a sinful, fallen angel. The Devil will leave the spirit world and appear on earth in a visible form. Then he will be called the Beast.

Anthony Hogg says: "Why did Chesham need to put this stuff through Farrant? A good question and one that hasn't been answered yet. But does that automatically invalidate Chesham's testimony? No. It was dumb including John Pope and Jean-Paul Bourre, two of the Satanists in question, in the mix. Especially as Pope is now Muslim and Bourre is a Luciferean [sic] as distinct from a Satanist."

Redmond McWilliams (Morden, Surrey), an atheist who collaborates closely with Farrant to troll me on the internet and  who, like Anthony Hogg, is totally obsessed with Highgate Cemetery's past.

McWilliams recently used his Highgate Cemetery Facebook group to critcise the Roman Catholic Church: "Not so long ago the Catholic church proposed to threaten Catholic politicians in the UK with excommunication if they voted in favour of a civil partnership bill for same sex couples. And they say that it's Christians who are under attack from 'militant secularists'!?! "

John Pope has known Farrant since October 1973 and stood alongside him in the dock at the Old Bailey in 1974 after they were arrested together while performing a demon raising ceremony at a derelict house. Pope was naked while Farrant wore a mackintosh as the pair attempted to summon something from the depths of the Pit with Farrant wielding a ritual dagger surrounded by symbols.

John Pope, once the head of the United Temples of Satan, and a self-styled Mason, supports ritual human sacrifice, but settles for animal sacrifice. David Farrant has claimed as far back as 1973 to support animal sacrifice in the Hornsey Journal, 28 September 1973 and Hornsey Journal, 31 August 1973. In the latter he stated when interviewed by Roger Simpson: "Hundreds of years ago a naked virgin would have been sacrificed, but obviously we couldn't do that now so we had to have an animal for the important ritual."

David Farrant's close friend since December 1979, Jean-Paul Bourre, a self-proclaimed Luciferian and Mason, also has a predilection for killing defenceless animals, usually in deserted graveyards, to fulfill the depraved needs of a satanic ceremony. Bourre can be seen doing so on a French television programme at this link:

Jean-Paul Bourre's Bourre's Luciferian friend Marcos Drake interviewed David Farrant on French television. The interview can be seen at this link:

What do we know about Luciferianism and indeed Jean-Paul Bourre? David Farrant informs us in a magazine article called "Witch Report" (Penthouse [UK], Vol. 8, No. 8, 1973, page 19): "Satanists worship Lucifer, the supreme power of evil, whereas witchcraft is a neutral thing — it's only evil if practised for an evil purpose." Like several of his Luciferian acquaintances, Jean-Paul Bourre amongst them, David Farrant, who has stated that he abandoned witchcraft in 1982, describes himself as someone who “accepts Lucifer as an important deity” and that he “worships Lucifer.” His words can be heard on The Devil’s Fool CD (Gothic Press) which comprises thirty-two interview extracts of David Farrant.

And what of Jean-Paul Bourre? Farrant is quite explicit in his earliest self-published pamphlet from which the photograph and caption, below, appear. According to Farrant, his longstanding friend Jean-Paul Bourre is "a leading Satanist" and in the picture Bourre is seen attempting "to invoke the Devil."

This brings us smartly on to Kevin Chesham who had completely transformed after living in New Zealand and forming an association with Kerry Bolton, founder of the Order of the Left Hand Path (renamed Ordo Sinistra Vivendi, then the Order of Deorc Fyre, and in the same year created the Black Order). Bolton was a former member of the Temple of Set (an offshoot of the Church of Satan) and was briefly secretary for the New Zealand Fascist Union. Kerry Bolton's Order was intended to be an activist front promoting an "occult-fascist axis." A masters thesis was written about Kerry Bolton and published by the Waikato University titled Dreamers of the Dark: Kerry Bolton and the Order of the Left Hand Path; a Case-study of a Satanic/Neo-Nazi Synthesis that dealt with the link between neo-Nazi and satanic beliefs in New Zealand. This is the man Kevin Chesham stayed in touch with, even after my warnings. In 2010, of course, he and his wife Beverley Mason formed an unholy alliance with David Farrant and the latter's associates.

Sunday, 8 April 2012


"[Enoch] Powell did not aspire to be a racist demagogue, but that is what he became. ... The National Front was founded on 7 February 1967. ... [It] was racist, anti-communist and isolationist, but not openly fascist. ... At first dismissed as a lunatic fringe group, the NF gained credibility because of Powell's speech. The NF cast itself as the party willing to act upon Powell's warnings. ... On 5 August 1976, in Birmingham, the guitarist Eric Clapton interrupted his concert to shout 'I think Enoch's right - we should send them all back! Throw the wogs out! Keep Britain white!' ... 'Enoch was the only bloke telling the truth, for the good of the country,' he reflected in 1978. 'I think Enoch is a prophet. His ideas are right.' ... Meanwhile, David Bowie told German journalists that 'Britain could benefit from a fascist leader.' On his return to Britain, he apparently thought it funny to greet his fans with a Nazi Salute. 'I think I might have been a bloody good Hitler,' he told Rolling Stone [magazine]. 'I'd be an excellent dictator.' ... The sudden prominence of reactionary rock deeply annoyed those who assumed that rock's rhythms were virtuously leftist."

The above passages are quoted from Chapter 6 of Gerard DeGroot's The Seventies Unplugged: A Kaleidoscopic Look At A Violent Decade (Macmillan, 2010), and I include them to show how very different England was in the late 1960s and the 1970s. Imagine much admired celebrities expressing those type of sentiments today! Under subsequent legislation introduced by UK governments they would almost certainly face a prison sentence. If there were not the severe restrictions placed on the freedom of speech as there are in present-day Britain, I wonder how many more well-known people would say what is really on their mind? When Brian Ferry of Roxy Music a little while back confessed to admiring the Third Reich, its spectacle and symbolism, and collected pictures and memorabilia of same, he had to do an awful lot of back-peddling to stay afloat. Personally, I find the current atmosphere of folk being afraid to speak their mind unhealthy. If there are problems they need to be debated openly, honestly and without fear. Instead, we live in a repressed society where dishonesty reigns and problems magnify. I make these points as background material to the era when I am falsely accused of being a member of the National Front by David Farrant. He provides no evidence, of course, and would be unable to do so because, unlike Farrant and Kevin Chesham who now mimics Farrant's allegation despite the pair of them holding NF sympathies, I spoke out against the NF in the late 1960s (see below), and was physically attacked by them while on a peace vigil over Christmas in the early 1980s. Needless to say, I have never been a member of the NF. Indeed, I have belonged to no political party whatsoever, but actively support CND and Pax Christi.

David Farrant has also claimed I am a Satanist, which is no less preposterous than claiming I once held membership in the National Front, given my lifetime odyssey as a Christian culminating in my eventually taking holy orders where today I hold an episcopal office as a Church leader. But my detractors are not interested in viewing the broader canvas where people and the times in which they lived obtains. They seek only to repeat whatever they can find which is negative and amounts to little more than abuse to hurl out of context in order to serve an agenda which I examine further on the final blog that follows this one. These detractors are few and far between. I quote some of their recent barbs with my own ripostes below:

"Bishop Manchester has opened a new blog rebutting the allegations made by someone who it seems has betrayed him badly ..." (Posted by Timelord) "...and blaming it all on David Farrant as usual." (Posted by "Della Maria Vallicrusaka "Della Escarti" aka "Della Farrant," London, England).

As I have already made clear, the appropriation of blame lies exclusively with Kevin Chesham and Beverley Mason. They alone chose to enter into collusion with David Farrant from whom I would expect no different. He is, after all, an enemy. They were alleged friends whom Farrant sent malicious pamphlets containing libel about me and mine. They did not have to drink the poison on offer. Many others, including my own wife and her family, have received the same unsolicited malice in the form of self-published pamphlets from Farrant. Only Kevin and Beverley responded positively to my adversary's overtures, probably because the seed of betrayal already existed within them and had done so for some considerable time. They even passed Farrant's hate-filled pamphlets to others. Kevin claimed he wanted to thump Farrant some time later, but when to everyone's incredulity Beverley Mason called on Farrant in person at his Muswell Hill Road, London, abode with her husband quickly following suit, the alarm bells immediately sounded.

"I'm surprised Manchester advocates personal self-defence, but is against 'just war', the implication being that the Brits should've let the Nazis goose-step all over them and Europe during WW2." (Posted by Anthony Hogg, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia).

I fail to follow that logic. Jesus Christ opposed the just war theory and so did the entire Christian Church for the first three centuries until it was absorbed into the Roman Empire. Previous to Constantine defeating Maxentius at the Milvian Bridge in 312, Christians would neither be allowed, nor want to be, in the Army. After 416, however, by an edict of Theodosius, only Christians were allowed to enlist in the Roman Army as the Church became part of the state at the price of profound falsification of the Gospel message. Jesus nevertheless enquired of His disciples when they were tavelling "How many swords have we among us?" and when they answered "two" they were told it would be enough. It was normal to have someone carrying a sword at the front and also at the rear of a group travelling in dangerous territory. This would be for self-protection from bandits etc. Likewise, I disagree with the concept of a just war, but would defend my wife if we were to be attacked by an intruder. Had Great Britain not declared war on Germany in the wake of a conveniently manufactured agreement with Poland that was designed to be violated, perhaps the sixty million people killed, which was over 2.5% of the world population, might for the most part have survived? Hitler certainly did not want a war with Great Britain on whose Empire he modelled his Third Reich. My country's action resulted in the worst and deadliest military conflict in human history. It should have been avoided by every means available. War solves nothing. It never has and it never will.

"Hitler modelled his Reich on the Roman Empire, not the British Empire (which by then was seriously starting to wobble)." (Posted by Redmond McWilliams, Morden, Surrey, England).
"The Ministry of People’s Education and Propaganda issued a circular letter with provisions for the official name of the 'new Germany.' It was to be called 'Empire,' quite possibly modelled after the British Empire." (The “Third Reich” in the German Legal, Philosophical and Political Thinking by Gábor Hamza) "Hitler admired the British Empire as a shining example of Nordic genius. Racist theories were developed by British intellectuals in the 19th century to control the Indian people and other 'savages.' These methods were often copied by the Nazis." (Nazi Ideology) "Hitler, you know, had the greatest respect for the British people, the British Empire and British culture and the civilisation that Britain had brought into the world." (Rudolf Hess speaking from his Spandau cell, Talking to Rudolf Hess, The History Press, 2009, by Desmond Zwar).
"In terms of Kev's 'shivering' during the Christmas dinner, that could very well have been his exposure to the fabled Nazi room, consistent with his own version of the story." (Posted by Anthony Hogg, Melbourne, Victoria, Austraila).

Kevin feigned shock and surprise when writing about entering the place where British and German militaria was stored in 2007; even though he was shivering long before he entered. No "shivering," however, after his exposure on countless previous occasions, eg no shivering when Kevin Chesham posed alongside a massive picture of Adolf Hitler in Berlin in 2004, and no shivering when he posed with Luftwaffe ceremonial swords and daggers, German eagles, swastikas and Wehrmacht belt buckles in 2003. And, of course, no shivering when he wrote admiringly about the British Union of Fascists and Nazi marching songs in 1998. Kevin's shivering in 2007 was entirely due to him being apprehensive over the clanestine task his wife was undertaking, ie snooping around our home with a spy camera on the pretext of using the upstairs lavatory.

"You're forgetting that their friendship lasted for over thirty years. Do you honestly think Kev woke up one morning and said ' #### Manchester! I'm going over to Team Dave!' If there's any 'collusion', what of it?" (Posted by Anthony Hogg, Melbourne, Victoria, Austraila).

We had known each other for thirty years when Kevin turned, but most of that period was spent without any communication or meetings. Kevin did not invite me once to visit him in all the time I had known him. I did not invite Kevin until the late 1980s and only then saw him very seldom. There was no real indication of his ideological shift until the visits made after his return from New Zealand when it was decided to monitor rather than abandon him. What sort of person is it who ends a friendship because the other person has fallen under sinister influences? At least I tried to be there for him, and it was him who ended it without having the courage to face me, write to me or contact me. I suddenly discovered on Epiphany 2010 that he had blocked me on Facebook. He offered no reason and did not respond to enquiries via other means. His actions were that of a coward, just like the behaviour exhibited by them both on their final vist in 2007.

"If BSM really finds ultra-nationalism and fascism so repulsive then why did he accept  [such gifts from Chesham]  let alone give them shelf space?" (Posted by Redmond McWilliams, Morden, Surrey, England).
As previously stated and apparent in previous blog entries, it was decided to monitor Kevin Chesham rather than abandon him. The best way to do this was to accept his gifts and not alert him to anything being awry. Unfortunately, him reading my novel Carmel (Gothic Press, 2000) caused him to distrust me. The novel does not show the Nazis in a favourable light. It was soon afterwards that he and Beverley Mason decided to attempt to fabricate "evidence" against me, which was rather silly in view of the fact that everything was witnessed by other people who will obviousy attest to the truth and are more than aware of Kevin's history. I naturally posed for photographs alongside him when Beverley took them with her camera. Why not? I had absolutely nothing to hide whereas Kevin was (and had been for some time) in league with a neo-Nazi Satanist based in New Zealand by the name of Kerry Bolton.

"Interestingly, Manchester refers to 'Br Kevin Chesham' in his 1995 book documenting the founding of his church; despite Chesham's Buddhist beliefs." (Posted by Anthony Hogg, Melbourne, Victoria, Austalia).
Had my blog been read properly it would have been discovered why. In Allegations, for example: "I have called most of my friends 'brother' or 'sister' for as long as I can remember, as is common among Christians whether the person being addressed is Christian or not, and Kevin did the same from 1973. His correspondence to people generally used this title and he invariably always signed off as 'Brother Kevin' for reasons best known to himself." The use of the word "Brother," employed all the time by Kevin in his correspondence to people, however, was also common among Blackshirt members of the British Union of Fascists. Regarding Kevin Chesham's professed "Buddhist beliefs," I say in Allegations: "Calling yourself a Buddhist and being a Buddhist, however, are two different things. In my experience, Kevin knows next to nothing about Buddhism, does not practice its philosophy, which advocates spiritual contemplation for the attainment of perfect peace, and has never been known to meditate. The Buddha discouraged his followers from indulging in disputation for its own sake, which is fruitless. What is Kevin engaing in now but a fruitless disputation? How does his transformation into someone who turned on his friends to attempt to place them in danger equate with karmic law?" And in Questions I ask: "What was the self-proclaimed 'pacifist Buddhist' and believer in 'non-violence' doing owning several deadly weapons which he kept in security safes at his home prior to emigrating? Representing the modern pentathlon reserve team for the Army enabled Kevin to acquire a firearms certificate, but he owned rather more than the pistol used in his discipline. He told my wife and I that he had acquired automatic weapons which he kept at his home that were not covered by a normal firearms certificate. He indicated that these were illegal weapons, and obviously fall outside the remit for the target shooting of a modern pentathlete. Why did he need these automatic assault weapons? What was the purpose in him acquiring them? He projects his love of Fascism onto me while offering himself to the public as some sort of peace loving Buddhist. Where is there any record of him participating in anything peaceful? Where is there any record of his spiritual endeavours? Where is the empirical evidence that Kevin Chesham is non-violent, peaceful and a Buddhist? There is none."
"What makes these tendencies especially unusual, is Manchester's support for the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament and criticism of the National Front." (Posted by Anthony Hogg, Melbourne, Victoria, Austalia).
Assuming the "tendencies" being superimposed are at all accurate, which they are not. I still support the CND and, not mentioned by my detractor, I am a representative in my episcopal capacity for Pax Christi.
"He's got distinctly 'conservative' views (including referring to Barack Obama as a 'negro' and 'mulatto')." (Posted by Anthony Hogg, Melbourne, Victoria, Austalia).
Barack Hussein Obama II (born 4 August 1961) has a mother of mostly English ancestry, along with Scottish, Irish, German, and Swiss. His father, Barack Hussein Obama, Senior, was a Luo from Nyang’oma Kogelo, Nyanza Province, Kenya, ergo President Barack Obama is the offspring of a white Northern European mother and a black African father. "Mulatto" denotes a person with one white parent and one black parent, or more broadly, a person of mixed black and white ancestry.  The word "Negro" is used in the English-speaking world to refer to a person of black ancestry or appearance. The word negro means "black" in Spanish and Portuguese, from the Latin niger, "black." In such circumstances, I cannot conceive of a more accurate description to describe Barack Obama than mulatto.
"Yes, it is 'Peter Lord's' address... as established both by David Farrant and Kev Demant!" (Posted by Redmond McWilliams, Morden, Surrey, England).

The London address, as stated many times in the past, was my parental one which I eventually inherited. At the time it was being used as an accommodation address for the Society I presided over until August 1988 when that organisation for research into occult and supernatural phenomena was dissolved. It was seldom used by executive members and myself once the official offices for the Society opened in Holloway Road at the beginning of the 1970s. Due to embossed Society notepaper bearing that address still being in use after the new premises opened, the old accommodation address appeared for a little while afterwards. The final address for that particular organisation was in Pond Square, Highgate, London.
"Maybe BSM would care to discuss the actual content of the Mirror's so called retraction on his blog and explain to us how it supports his assertions of innocence? Or is he referring to yet another one perhaps because I can't see it sorry! And what is with his obsession with our geographical locations?" (Posted by Redmond McWilliams, Morden, Surrey, England). "That's a good question. Something he and the FoBSM have in common. I mean, I personally, don't find the compulsive need to refer to Manchester's location, so why are ours such a big deal? Also, he WAS fined." (Posted by Anthony Hogg, Melbourne, Victoria, Austalia).

The word "retraction" is not used by me. What I actually say is that the Press Council obliged that newspaper to publish balancing commentary, having found in my favour that the Daily Mirror's report was unbalanced following a court case that I won against an acquaintance of David Farrant who was charged with assault. What I am innocent of is the scurrilous allegation offered by the defence to mitigate the outcome. This was the first time I heard of black magic threats allegedly made to the defence. Ironically, David Farrant would make a career of making black magic threats to people. He received a two years' prison sentence when convicted at the Old Bailey of threatening police witnesses in John Pope's sex case (Pope was later convicted of sexual assault on a minor). Farrant and Pope have been friends since 1973.

The names of my detractors are fairly common. I have, therefore, provided their general whereabouts to avoid any confusion with those of a similar or the same name. I only provide the town or city, not address details. Anthony Hogg, on the other hand, has published full address details of where can be found some of those he obsessively, ie almost every day of every year, comments about in an increasingly misleading and negative way. I am confident the FoBSM has not published address details of any of my detractors.

"BSM makes the claim that he was subsequently cleared of the charge and received damages but no evidence is supplied as support. And does he honestly believe that he David would use the Bradishes in this way... the very people who were putting up his bail?!?" (Posted by Redmond McWilliams, Morden, Surrey, England).
I could not be "subsequently cleared of the charge" because I was not charged with anything. It was the police who charged John Bradish whom the Crown found guilty on my behalf. The defence case put forward by the Bradishes included the black magic telephone threats  that David  Farrant had convinced the couple was me. Either that or they went along with the ploy to mitigate the outcome which it did to some extent. Yet the first I knew about these calls was when I heard them mentioned by a defence witness, Gillian Bradish. Using the Bradishes in this way was par for the course for Farrant who had a grudge against John Bradish due to alleged advances Bradish had made toward his wife, Mary, in the previous year or so. Farrant ran a hate campaign against Bradish without the latter being aware of who was behind it. Patrons of Farrant's pub of choice, the Prince of Wales, were very aware of who was behind the vendetta because Farrant shared his abusive stickers and leaflets with them, just as he boasted to them about the black magic telephone calls.
"What's amazing is, even though the court acknowledged he'd been assaulted, HE was made to pay a fine." (Posted by Anthony Hogg, Melbourne, Victoria, Austalia).
I was not fined. This is a false allegation from someone who, apart from his name, remains anonymous and hidden from view behind a demonic mask; someone, moreover, who is fulfilling an agenda rather than disseminating fact. To keep repeating a falsehood, as he is prone to do, does not turn error into truth. The Australian  not born when the case I brought against Bradish was heard  who keeps repeating this claim is required to offer proof before publishing such a falsehood. If it can be shown by him that I have been fined I will personally offer him to an expenses paid trip to England and give him a tour of the object of his obsession (besides myself), ie Highgate Cemetery. I am on exceedingly good terms with FoHC.

"Yet you take the word of someone who was fined for making harassing phone calls to Gillian Bradish?" (Posted by Anthony Hogg, Melbourne, Victoria, Austraila).

Let me be absolutely clear. I have never been fined in my entire life, and nor do I have any criminal convictions. To claim otherwise is defamatory. The Daily Mirror, 5 November 1970, published an inaccurate and unbalanced report of the outcome of a court case for assault brought by me against John Bradish, a friend of David Farrant but not an acquaintance of mine. A complaint was immediately lodged with the Press Council against the Daily Mirror by me. The Press Council upheld my complaint and the Daily Mirror was obliged to publish a statement offering balancing commentary which they did at the foot of page two of their newspaper on 26 November 1970. Criminal compensation was awarded to me in the following year by the Criminal Compensation Board. The assault case having been proven resulted in compensation for injuries sustained. It is regrettable that the deception upon John Bradish and his wife Gillian Bradish by Farrant was not apparent to all until after the court case. Gillian Bradish was put on the spot by the prosecution when asked how she knew who made the telephone calls. She went along with what she had been previously told by Farrant. However, in the following year she accepted she had been wrong and realised it was Farrant who made the threatening black magic telephone calls.  Until the trial, I had not spoken with or met Gillian Bradish. How could she possibly have recognised my voice when she made no contact with me until the day of the court case? I was later informed by Tony Hill (in whose cellar Farrant resided from August 1969 until August 1970) that John and Gillian Bradish’s telephone number was ex-directory. Hill was acquainted with this couple and had spoken to them on various occasions in pubs. I had not. As the plaintiff, I won the case despite all these shenanigans by Farrant to influence the defence case.

Gillian Bradish had a long history of mental illness and at a much later date sadly committed suicide. When I saw her husband years later we never spoke about these matters, but I sensed he was very much aware of what really happened in the autumn of 1970. From my perspective, the attempt to frame me for telephone calls made to the Bradish household by David Farrant is at the heart of the ill-feeling I feel toward the man who spent the next forty-two years waging a mindless vendetta against me, my family and friends; a vendetta, indeed, which still absurdly continues to this day. Farrant's enmity stems from earlier in 1970 when I would not allow myself to become involved in his asinine lone publicity-seeking schemes at Highgate Cemetery, and furthermore, warned against his proposed antics on Thames Television's Today programme and in the Hampstead & Highgate Express on 13 March 1970. He was arrested by police in August 1970 while carrying out the very thing I had advised against. Yet even now, if David Farrant was to come clean and admit to making the balck magic telephone calls to Gillian Bradish, something he boasted about immediately after the court case to drinking acquaintances in a pub where he was a familiar face, I would forgive him, but there can be no reconciliation unless this infected root of the problem, still exacting pain all these many years later, is addressed and indeed extirpated. Due to this matter being for me at the heart of what some people have called a "feud,"I have always stated that I would submit to a polygraph test.

My first meeting with David Farrant in early 1970. He is seen pointing to the spot where he claimed to have witnessed an apparition on three occasions at Highgate Cemetery. I was far from convinced. His claim proved to be bogus and my refusal to support him led to Farrant conducting a malicious vendetta.

Saturday, 7 April 2012


I feel the last word should go to Keith Maclean (written in a letter I received from him on Maundy Thursday) who knew Kevin Chesham as well as anyone can. They are pictured in the photograph above on a beach very close to my retreat. Keith is a Christian friend I have known long before I met Kevin Chesham.

Sunday, 1 April 2012


The sun sets on a friendship in these final moments on 26 December 2007. We had first met in 1973.

“It is easier to forgive an enemy than to forgive a friend.”
― William Blake

Betrayal is common for men with no conscience. I must, therefore, conclude that Kevin Chesham has no conscience.  Everyone suffers at least one bad betrayal in their lifetime. The trick is not to let it destroy your trust in others when that happens. Do not allow them take that from you. Confucius wisely says: "It is more shameful to distrust our friends than to be deceived by them." I was certainly deceived by Kevin Chesham and Beverley Mason. I would rather my enemy's sword pierce my heart then my friend's dagger stab me in the back. And they stabbed me, my wife and all our mutual acquaintances in that cowardly fashion. A friend is someone who stands by us in times of weakness or need (Proverbs 17: 17). They are there to laugh with us when we are happy and cry with us when we are sad. We may expect danger from all manner of places, but not from a friend. That is why betrayal of this sort is the worst. It is despicable beyond measure. 

One of the best known stories in the Bible is that of Judas and his betrayal of Our Lord who was destined to suffer and die. There was a prophecy that He would be betrayed (Psalm 41: 9). That Judas planned ahead of time is evidenced by his going to the priests seeking the thirty silver coins for his deed (Zechariah 11: 13; Matthew 26: 14,15). It pained Jesus that Judas betrayed Him with a kiss of friendship, recognition and brotherhood (Luke 22: 48). Betrayal by someone who is close and whom you trust is far more painful than if an enemy appeared and brought you harm. Betrayal by a friend is the worst type of betrayal imaginable.

There is no way to God by betraying others. The most shocking aspect of the betrayal my wife and I have suffered at the hands of Kevin and Beverley is their dishonesty; their willingness to lie about everything. The Devil is described, more than anything else, as a liar. He has no power to defeat God, but he is skilled at lying, and convincing people to listen to his lies. The person Kevin and Beverley turned to in order to make their betrayal complete is an arch-deceiver who hates Christians, someone who is an emissary of the Devil.

If I had always followed my better judgement, my life would have been a great deal duller. Yet I do not judge folk if I can help it. I have met and befriended such wonderful people who took actions and held views so very different to my own. I feel it is most important to be true to oneself. That is all we can ask of our friends. Those who are not and aim to deceive I would usually ignore and advise others to do the same. Kevin Chesham and Beverley Mason are a case apart because their actions place others in considerable danger.

Wednesday, 21 March 2012


Questions immediately arise in the wake of the stream of unfounded and unsubstantiated allegations made by Kevin Chesham and Beverley Mason in collusion with David Robert Donovan Farrant (whose name I give in full due to Kevin sometimes referring to him in correspondence to people as "Donovan") whose malicious propaganda they adopted and disseminated with clear intent to cause me and mine harm.

Why did Kevin wait three and a half decades before having "seen enough on this occasion – enough to make Bev and himself think very carefully about any future meetings, and indeed, what positive role Sean could ever play in their lives again"? Note, as always was the case, it is all about what they can extract from a situation and not what they bring to one. I am the same person I was when I was a teenager. My views, outlook, philosophy and beliefs have not fundamentally changed. I was in my thirtieth year when I first met Kevin and I was no different spiritually, emotionally and most every other way in 1973 to how I am now. Yet he claims that he could no longer abide who and what I am after his December 2007 visit, which was the last time we saw either of them. That notwithstanding, he was too cowardly to tell me in person. Certainly not to my face, and not even in the form of written correspondence or an e-mail. In fact, I did not learn of their betrayal of our friendship until Beverley Mason confirmed it after I already knew owing to David Farrant advertising it on his blog. Farrant must have thought all his Christmasses had arrived at once!

If Kevin was so disgusted about things in December 2007, why did he write supporting me and making threats against David Farrant in December 2009  two years after our last meeting? An extract from his letter to Keith Maclean appears above. More of the same letter can be found at "Allegations." Indeed, why was he writing admiringly about the leader of the British Union of Fascists back in August 1998, which is a decade before his "Fascist" accusations against me? This letter appears in its entirety at "Allegations II."

Why did Kevin enter into a relationship with the Kerry Bolton, pictured above, the founder of the Order of the Left Hand Path who had been a member of the Temple of Set (a breakaway group with neo-Nazi sentiments that split from the Church of Satan) who at the time was secretary of the New Zealand Fascist Union and in 2004 became the secretary of the New Zealand National Front?

Why did Kevin remain in correspondence with Kerry Bolton after he had returned to Great Britain in the latter half of the 1990s and ignore all my warnings about this man and his neo-Nazi-satanic ideology?

Why did Kevin and Beverley wear Christian crosses around their necks in 2006 and 2007? Kevin has stated all along that he is a Buddhist and has been for forty years. Beverley, while claiming to me in person to be a Christian, indeed a member of the Church of England, subsequent to our last meeting has stated to have been a Buddhist throughout all the time I have known her. What was the purpose of them wearing crosses other than to deceive and create a false image at a time when they had already turned to the dark side?

Why does Kevin describe me as being eccentric for having Christian statues? He states: "I must admit he does have a lot of statues. Again, as in the past, I put this down to eccentricity, and humoured the whole situation so as not to cause any direct offence." Is it really eccentric for a Christian bishop to have statues of Jesus Christ, the Blessed Virgin, St Francis of Assisi and other saints at his retreat house? I am pictured above with two good friends, one of whom is Jewish (despite Kevin offensively referring to me as an "anti-semite" and "racist") in my home. A fellow priest and a friend of many years is pictured below. He is African. I have many close friends from all over the world. I love them for who they are and judge nobody by their race or creed. I would like to maintain the diversity we enjoy in God's garden and not lose any of it. Kevin also accuses me of being homophobic when he is probably the most homophobic individual I have known. Within weeks of first making Kevin's acquaintance he had verbally attacked and denigrated in front of his fellow workers a homosexual man also employed by the Borough of Barnet.  My position on all these controversial matters is no different to that of Pope Benedict XVI and most other Christian leaders.

Why does Kevin call me "eccentric" for having traditional Christian items when his favourite music fluctuates between Al Jolson and 1930s Fascist marching songs? Is it not eccentric of him to consume forty eggs and several chickens per day? Kevin completely identifies with a dark and dismal era before he was born. Is that not eccentric? He never wears any clothes other than track suits and trainers. He turned up at our wedding reception wearing trainers, track suit bottom and a T-shirt. Likewise, he wore a track suit at a funeral. He was similarly attired when he attended my episcopal consecration and other special occasions. He shows no respect or interest in acknowledging the nature of what is happening outside his own self-obsessed world.

Why did Kevin complain of being isolated when he always isolated himself? Kevin is one of the least gregarious people I have ever met in my life. Intimations of a difficult childhood might hold the key, but he has never shown any genuine interest in people other than those who share his fanaticism for sport, or fascination with the Third Reich. We were put on our guard after his return from New Zealand when he started to become pre-occupied with any future address we might have. He knew we were looking at properties in Glastonbury, but when his interest became so very obvious (it is all he and Beverley enquired about when they visited until their interest in Farrant re-emerged and started to eclipse the topic) we decided not to inform him of our plans and certainly not any acquisitions we might make. This, in turn, led to him withholding his own address which is currently in Wickhay, Basildon. This atmosphere of mutual suspicion and distrust grew as they fed us with nonsense we knew to be unsafe, and we tried to draw them out by showing no aversion to their increasingly extreme views. That Kevin was turned by Kerry Bolton seemed apparent, but it was never imagined for a single moment that either of them could be turned by Farrant. This was a betrayal of friendship that nobody had been able to predict, or indeed accept. Most of the epithets used by others to describe Kevin cannot be repeated here, but "hypocrite" and "liar" are apposite.

Why does Kevin want to be bigger than he really is? His quest has always been to inflate himself to something he is not. Only his ego outstrips the rest of him, and this shows on his face in photographs.
Kevin has accepted and repeated the worst of David Farrant's libel. He has taken what he knows to be true about me and inverted it. I oppose war and violence. I am against all forms of abuse, bulllying, stalking and harassment, and I reject bigotry and hatred in all its manifestations. Yet Kevin paints the opposite picture of me; one much more akin to a portrait of himself. It is a poor reflection on his intelligence if he imagines anyone will be taken in by his attempts save where they are of a similar mind and are themselves abusive.

Why does Kevin claim to be a pacifist? He says: "Despite my military career, I am in essence a pacifist, and do not condone violence, which I consider to be the hallmark of an uncivilised society." Yet within days of knowing him I recognised his propensity for violence. He nearly assaulted a person senior to him at Finchley Pool, and showed aggresion a lot of the time he worked there. When out running he would shout at strangers who were smoking cigarettes. I recall him potentially vandalising vehicles by running over the bonnets and roofs of cars parked down Merton Lane as we left Hampstead Heath on a run. He would bang on the roofs of cars who cut him up on the road when he was out cycling, and I was told of occasions where he threatened motor vehicle drivers with violence. What kind of pacifist takes employment as a night club bouncer where, by his own admission, he did unsavoury things about which he is now ashamed?

What was the self-proclaimed "pacifist Buddhist" and believer in "non-violence" doing owning several deadly weapons which he kept in security safes at his home prior to emigrating? Representing the modern pentathlon reserve team for the Army enabled Kevin to acquire a firearms certificate, but he owned rather more than the pistol used in his discipline. He told my wife and I that he had acquired automatic weapons which he kept at his home that were not covered by a normal firearms certificate. He indicated that these were illegal weapons, and obviously fall outside the remit for the target shooting of a modern pentathlete. Why did he need these automatic assault weapons? What was the purpose in him acquiring them? 

Why did Kevin inform my wife and I that he was in communication with German female who had worked in British Army Intelligence and was now offering to hack into anyone's computer for him, or find out other information he might want? We had the distinct impression that this was an intimidatory statement rather than him offering the service to us. He mentioned this German female on at least three occasions. We showed absolutely no interest and, like much of what Kevin claimed, took it with a very large pinch of salt. 

Why is Kevin standing alongside a large photograph of Adolf Hitler in this picture taken in Berlin in 2004?

How can Kevin Chesham possibly explain away what he is doing in the above picture? He is unquestionably giving a Fascist salute while wearing what looks like an English Defence League quasi-uniform? And he has the audacity to call other people Fascists! The truth is that politics were never discussed when he visited until it became apparent he had been infected by Bolton. Then everything was done to draw out of him the poison. Unfortunately, he had already read my novel Carmel by that point, in which I describe the Nazis in such a negative way that would have alerted him. He would also have probably become acquainted with From Satan To Christ after receiving and reading Farrant's hate-filled pamphlets maligning me. In these pamphlets my work is mentioned. This would have occurred soon after our last meeting. From Satan To Christ warns against the Nazi-occult connection. Kerry Bolton, of course, founded the Black Order (The Nexus being its newsletter) intended to be an activist front promoting an "occult-fascist axis" by mobilising political groups and youth culture elements such as industrial music. 

Why has Kevin attempted to project himself onto me while trying to adopt aspects of my character for himself? He describes my marriage in a way more appropriate to his own. He projects his love of Fascism onto me while offering himself to the public as some sort of peace loving Buddhist. Where is there any record of him participating in anything peaceful? Where is there any record of his spiritual endeavours? He told my guests that he is a member of the BNP. Now he is repeating David Farrant's false and totally unsubtsantiated accusations against me and adding to them his own toxic brew of falsehood. Yet I have been an organiser for CND and still remain a representative of Pax Christi. Far from canvassing for a far right organisation like the National Front, as claimed by Farrant and now Kevin, I have been physically attacked by people belonging to this group. A Combat 18 website administrator has also uploaded my image where I am in Christian sacerdotal vestments and incited violence against me at the behest of Kevin's new friend.

Where is the empirical evidence that Kevin Chesham is non-violent, peaceful and a Buddhist? There is none. The autocephalous jurisdiction where I hold primacy is called Ecclesia Apostolica Jesu Christi (Apostolic Church of Jesus Christ) also known as The Grail Church. Its doctrine and beliefs are on record in a book I wrote seventeen years ago with the same title. It promotes non-violence and peace from cover to cover.

Why would Kevin claim that I "despise Glastonbury" when it is my spiritual home? I love Glastonbury!

Why would Kevin claim that I told him "something must be done about David Farrant" when, as seen in the his correspondence, I was the one calming the situation and advising that Kevin ignore this man? Almost every letter Kevin wrote to me or our mutual friends contained expressions of enmity towards David Farrant as confirmed in the examples below:

Why did I tolerate what was going on right under my nose as Kevin grew more extreme in his ideology?

I had known Kevin a long time and once it was realised he had been contaminated by a neo-Nazi-satanic ideology I felt obliged to monitor his behaviour to try and find out what exactly was going on. He revealed less and less, and became uncommunicative, barely speaking to anyone on his last three visits. His orders were probably to bide his time and then attempt to discredit me whilst making an ally of my long-standing adversary who is believed by many, including in all probability Kerry Bolton, to be a Satanist. Beverley Mason attempted to find something when she snooped around our home with her spy camera, but failed because it does not exist. A collector of militaria is not the same as a Nazi. Some items had been received as gifts from Kevin while others were curios that held a certain novelty value, eg the eagle with my initials which had been given to me by an acquaintance. Booklets and press cuttings often came from Kevin.
Kevin became more and more isolated and has only managed to achieve the ultimate ignominy of being a mouthpiece for an ex-convict, a man Kevin has claimed to despise for as many years as I have known him. Now he is no different to Farrant and merits the same contempt intelligent observers heap on this malicious individual's falsehoods.

Kevin always viewed himself as being on the periphery largely because he was on the periphery. Following his disgraceful behaviour toward me and my wife he is not even on the periphery, having excommunicated himself in what is just one of a myriad of catastrophic choices he has made throughout his life. So be it.