Diggory Press / Exposure Publishing

[ChristineR]

On the unrelated cases, it seems that this case has attracted so much publicity so far that it is pretty inconceivable that anyone with a case against diggory would not be aware of stephen manning, therefore I assume they do not wish to be associated with him. He himself appealed for the unknown person(s) to get in touch with him, ask him yourself.

That's quite an assumption. The reasons someone may or may not tie in their legal case with someone else's are varied and broad. Ditto for discussing your case with a complete stranger, no matter what you may have in common.

As far as personal associations, or not joining his support group, the phrase "do not wish to be associated with him" carries implications far beyond simply not caring to join his support group.

I guess if Mr. Manning can't document the one hundred complaints, you are right to be skeptical of the figure. But there are still quite a few documented complaints against Diggory. Twenty-two people had complaints that they could not resolve and felt forced to take legal action. Mr. Manning may be quite a personality, but it takes more than personality to go to court.

If the court exonerates Diggory, then I'll be convinced of Diggory's honesty. Unfortunately, it looks like we'll have to wait a while.

 

[ChristineR]

In post #80 Mr. Manning says 22 people registered complaints in the UK courts. He then gives some reasons why there are only five in the current lawsuit.

Now this may not be true, but I assume that this is something that can be checked, so I am going on the assumption that it is an accurate number. It there's documentation of these twenty-two complaints, maybe someone has it and can post it somewhere. Anyhow, if it's only seventeen, that's not a huge difference--that's still seventeen customers of Diggory that were so unhappy that they felt the need to go to the courts.

 

[ChristineR]

So there were twenty-two cases, and seventeen ended in exoneration for Diggory? That's the first I've heard of this. A person deciding not to join Manning's lawsuit is not the same as exoneration. If the case was settled in mediation, that's not exoneration. If it's determined that court costs will exceed the amount in dispute and counsel advises them to drop the suit, that's not exoneration. Now I want to see the outcome of these supposed complaints that exonerate Diggory.

 

[MickRooney]

Sleuthfortruth,

“Mick Rooney, I already responded to James about who I was and what my interest in this case was and how I started doing articles on it as I was censored elsewhere.”

If your response to James was through these posts, then you really haven’t verified anything of your true identification. I, on the other hand do not post here or other websites I write articles for with anything other than my own real name.

“I also notice that you accuse ME of being Rosalind. This is getting really, really boring and ever more ridiculous. Everybody and anybody who questions Stephen Manning is accused of being Rosalind - in spite of the evidence.”

No, I do not believe everyone who has a different view to Stephen Manning or has sympathy/support for Rosalind Franklin or Diggory Press and voices that opinion is Rosalind Franklin secretly operating with an alias. However, I do believe this has occurred over the past two years by Rosalind Franklin or people directly connected with Diggory Press. I have watched the Internet spurn mouthpiece blogsites which espouse the virtues of Diggory Press, just as there have been a host of author-driven sites launched by disgruntled Diggory authors. Most notably, the linked site below, with the clear aim to promote Diggory Press, but written, yet again, under a pseudonym, was taken down in late 2008.

http://selfpublishingnews.wordpress.com/

Quite frankly, Sleuthfortruth, I’ve become rather tired of writers across the Internet, on both sides of this argument, using silly dreamt-up vitriolic aliases to push their own agenda—be it to damn Diggory Press and Rosalind Franklin from high or portray Stephen Manning as some delusional crackpot.

“Why don't I accuse YOU of being Stephen Manning, seeing how pro him you are? Where's your indentification and proof of who you are? If we both irrationally accuse each other of being fronts for the other party, we both get nowhere at all. Stop using this silly accusation as an excuse and let's look at the facts, shall we?”

You can of course accuse away Sleuthfortruth. No, I am not Stephen Manning – I am the person it says on the left of this column posting. You see, I don’t do pseudonyms. Nor do I believe James McDonald needs any verification of who I am. If that of course is necessary, then I am quite willing to provide it. And yes, let’s look at the facts, Sleuthfortruth, it’s something we have in common – you see, we both have very little of them haven’t we? – like so many other commentators on this case. That is, in spite of your continued vitriolic claims throughout your postings here to speak as if you had some, if not all, the FACTS. I invite anyone reading these posts to carefully note how often you refer to making statements of FACT or claiming to have FACTS. You could not, no more than I have clear and precise evidentiary FACTS about this case. (note carefully the word, EVIDENTUARY, Sleuthfortruth).

“The FACTS are Stephen Manning has lied. Many times. He has even entered fraudulent court claims in other people's names without their permission. This is FACT.”

Oh, Sleuthfortruth, the quote is yours, the CAPS are mine!

“One also has to look at Stephen Manning's previous complaints against other companies and also the general deception that surrounds him (such as his claiming to be a doctor when he is not) to see who and what he is. This matters.”

Yes, complaints he made, and published. Companie(s), I am only aware of one company, Pagefree in the US and the institute to which he received his PHd. But, perhaps, again, Slethfortruth, you know more than the rest of us.

“Of course the evidence will show where he has lied and contradicted himself as these are where all the claims go back to - their source, Stephen Manning.”

Well, of course it will, Sleuthfortruth. It seems again you have all the insight and evidence.

“You don't like me writing things from the other side of the debate, even when what I say is true, documented and proven - why? Yet you are allowed to lie and smear? I give both sides a voice.”

No, not at all Sleuthfortruth, as you seem to speak from such an informed opinion.

 

[MickRooney]

Just for the record, I do not know Rosalind Franklin, nor have I ever spoken to her as 'Rosalind Franklin' or corresponded with her. However, on my own website, and others, I have posted along in discussions with other subscribers on websites with someone using an 'alias' I believe to be Rosalind Franklin or someone directly connected with Diggory Press. But that is my opinion and my well-formed opinion.

Regarding Stephen Manning, I have never spoken to Stephen, though he has commented on my site, and I have exchanged emails with him over the past year concerning this case and matters and legal materials concerning this case.

I have also corresponded directly with a number of the authors involved with small claims actions, approximately, 6 to 8, though I would have to check my own records to be precise.

As of this time, barring Stephen Manning and Rosalind Franklin, I do not know the names of the plaintiffs concerned with the case next March, though I have suspicions myself via correspondence as to who they are.

 

[waylander]

Waylander, you think Stephen Manning has posted in convincing detail?? How come all the contradictions then?

These contradictions exist only in your mind.

 

[EgyptianGoddess]

OH MY F**KING GOD!

Will all of you give it a rest already? What do you hope to prove? Nothing is going to be "proven" or "dis-proven" in this thread. What, do you sit and babysit this thread waiting until someone with the opposite view point posts?

Am I the only one to say "ENOUGH!"????

 

[veinglory]

You can say 'enough' by not participating. If other people want to talk in circles, does it matter?

 

[EgyptianGoddess]

....... If other people want to talk in circles, does it matter?

I guess that's true enough....lol. I was just getting sick of reading these long ass posts that don't really solve anything.

Thanks

 

[James D. Macdonald]

I was just getting sick of reading these long ass posts that don't really solve anything.

They solve quite a bit, if any author in their wildest dreams were ever thinking of paying money to Diggory....

 

[Parametric]

BTW, I'm not prejudging this, but I'm just trying to establish the facts.

Yep, you're a totally reliable, neutral third party.

 

[EgyptianGoddess]

They solve quite a bit, if any author in their wildest dreams were ever thinking of paying money to Diggory....

Very true

Anyone who doesn't know that by now........ahem

 

[Richard White]

Well, one good thing is all this conversation about the controversy surrounding Diggory Press has driven this thread to the #3 position in Google when searching on Diggory Press.

I think that's worth the price of admission on this one.

Plus, it gave us another blog entry over on Writer Beware

 

[Shiny]

I'm not denying that there might be some authors with a legitimate claim, my question is how many.

For writers using this board to make informed decisions, the existance of any authors with a legitimate claim is significant. It would certainly affect my decision making process.

 

[Momento Mori]

Inquisitor:
I don't know the number and no-one apart from me has yet bothered to ask. I am trying to clarify the 'five of us' comment by stephen manning, and get a definite number of litigants currently involved in the ongoing diggory/manning case.

If you don't know the number of people suing Diggory Press then why even bother to mention it? What point are you trying to make?

Inquisitor:
Correct me if I am wrong here, but I have not seen the evidence, nor have you. Private eye and The Gaurdian merely reported that there was a group action due to be heard in the courts. Your opinion on the case is based entirely on what you have read in the newspaper and seen on the net. That puts us both in the same boat. My lack of publishing knowlege does not bar me from asking basic questions about the case. I am still keeping an open mind on this, unlike you.

Actually there are several very big difference between us: I've never made any judgment about the evidence, I've never made any assumptions about the evidence and I've never tried to cast doubt on any evidence (whatever that may be) that Stephen wants to put before the court by trying to dig out things that may or may not relate to his character. You've done all 3.

This thread is supposed to be about Diggory Press, but you and sleuthfortruth have sought to make this personal. If you've got something positive to say about Diggory Press and its business, then please feel free to share. Whatever grudge you've got against Stephen isn't the issue here.

Inquisitor:
Actually I think it is relevant. If I were to sue someone in court I would at least make a point of turning up on the day. Travel expenses and accomodation can be claimed if the case is won, assuming the "17" actually thought they had a winnable case. How many parties were represented by the "diggory 17" lawyer if applicable?

No, it's not relevant. Have you ever been to a civil court? If you have, then you'll know how pointless it is for plaintiffs and defendants to be there in person if they're not giving evidence. Many of my barrister friends actually recommend that their client stay away if they have something better to do - such as going to work, looking after their family etc etc.

With regard to reclaiming travel and accommodation costs - well that can take a long time in and of itself to recoup, so why spend out additional money on a day where you have nothing to contribute?

As for keeping an open mind about this case - where exactly have you demonstrated your open mind on this thread? All I've seen you demonstrate is nasty inuendo that has no bearing on this discussion.

sleuthfortruth:
So why isn't Stephen's site pulled down that discredits the litigants Rosalind and Diggory Press? Why is "his side" professional and "her side" unprofessional for discussing this case now. How's what I'm saying hysterical when it's documented fact, but his side isn't documented fact and he has lied and claimed some ridiculous and also impossible things? There's some blatant dual standards going on here. What's good for the goose.

Instead of asking me these questions, why don't you ask Rosalind and Diggory Press? I've got many talents but mind reading isn't one of them so I have no clue as to what they have or have not done and why they have or have not done it. What I will say is that just as Stephen exercised his rights vis-a-vis the internet host, so they can exercise theirs.

sleuthfortruth:
This is the small claims court, not the high court. Cases can be discussed now. Stephen has no right to pull a site down that discusses a case and facts out in the public domain. And there's not 7 cases ongoing at this point in time. There's less than that. One of these cases being against Manning.

Stephen has every right to make a request to an internet host and the internet host has every right to decide whether to pull the site. Whining about it doesn't take away from that.

1 case, 2 cases, 23 cases - what does it matter? There is at least one and possibly several cases against Diggory Press, indicating a lack of satisfaction with their services.

sleuthfortruth:
I HAVE seen some of the court papers. I HAVE seen the evidence. Because unlike you, I took time to check out the facts.

Which court papers have you seen? The only facts that I've seen you quote seem aimed at Stephen's character - what facts have you seen that pertain to the merit of his case?

sleuthfortruth:
"With regard to other complaints about Diggory Press, as Stephen says, some cases were dropped due to costs, others were directed into mediation"

How do you KNOW? You're just taking Manning's word for it.

Okay - do you know why those cases were dropped? What basis do I have to take your word for it?

sleuthfortruth:
Yet a lawyer did not represent the ones who failed to turn up. The reason being is some of these names were people who knew nothing about the case! Stephen Manning had entered claims in their names lodged against Diggory Press, but they knew nothing about it and had not given their permission. This is serious fraud and deception.

In which case I would expect Diggory Press to make a complaint to the court or to the police. Do you know if they have done so?

sleuthfortruth:
>>If the court exonerates Diggory, then I'll be convinced of Diggory's honesty. Unfortunately, it looks like we'll have to wait a while.

They have already, 17 times!

Striking out a claim is not an exoneration of Diggory Press unless the court either directed that the claims could not be refiled as they have no merit or in striking out a claim made a determination that Diggory had no claim to answer.

Did a court do either of these things?

Skiman:
Sorry. Gotta chip in again folks - mainly because 'Inquisitor' & 'SleuthForTruth' (aka Rosalind Franklin) seems to be getting up a head of steam again..

<SNIP>

Anyway, to get to the point(s); It's genuinely hard to know where to start when dealing with Mrs Franklin of Diggory Press, (as well as her other main persona as 'Miriam Franklin' end-times-prophetess).. as she seems either incapable or unable to remain within normal moral bounds.

Yeah, well frankly Skiman all of you are looking pretty batshit insane about this and the fact that you've all brought your little personal war to this thread and are seeking to use AW as an additional battleground doesn't do either of you any favours in my book.

My personal suggestion would be to all of you to stay clear until one of you actually has a court judgment that you can quote and which someone can independently verify. At the moment all I'm seeing is accusations full of crazy conspiracy stories and some unpleasant personal comments. None of you have any claim to the moral high ground.

Inquisitor:
And I ask again,

How many of the diggory 17 turned up in court on the day?

Please change the record. You've got sleuthfortruth blathering on about how it's not 17 it's some other number (except where it's not) and none of it really carries any significance with a court anyway.

If you're really that bothered then send him an email.

Inquisitor:
The rest of the forum may have swallowed this story hook, line and sinker. I'm not yet convinced.

No kidding.

So why do you think that Diggory Press is a good publisher for an author to sign with?

Inquisitor:
I'm not denying that there might be some authors with a legitimate claim, my question is how many. I don't beleive this figure of 22, or 17, hence my still ananswered questions...

What do numbers have to do with it? If one author has a legitimate claim against Diggory Press then surely that's one author too many?

MM

 

[MickRooney]

This thread is supposed to be about Diggory Press, but you and sleuthfortruth have sought to make this personal. If you've got something positive to say about Diggory Press and its business, then please feel free to share. Whatever grudge you've got against Stephen isn't the issue here.

I entirely concur MM.

This thread is about Diggory Press and the validity of an author using their services or not.

What we are witnessing here and on Sleuthfortruth's various sites, by the hour, let alone the day, are attempts through third parties to present 'their evidence' with screenshots of emails, comment postings etc, many of which have their authentication blanked out.

The only evidence that will count is the evidence presented (with full disclosure and identification) next March and this will be presided over and ultimately decided by the Judge.

For those who think my own comments here express a 'pro Manning' stance, I would direct you to a quote from my own public comments on this case two days ago.

"They are both highly intelligent [Franklin & Manning], centric individuals, well educated, and deeply passionate about what has shaped their beliefs, academically, theologically, religiously and have been effected greatly by their own life’s experience. Yet, look back on all that has been said, and it is clear both are charging headlong toward what each believes is, in both their own words, at various times, ‘THE TRUTH’. It has been a mantra for both of them. For one, it is ‘The Colour of Truth’, for the other; it is ‘The Word of Truth’. If they are both right and they continue like this, around about late March next year, they will both reach the same singular point and violently bump heads.

It is a little rudimentary, but then, searching for the ‘Truth’ often leads one onto a singular path which misses much of the universal perspective, thereby, removing the individual far from what actually made them what they are and what they are to become. No righteous indignation or facts written upon a piece of paper take us any closer to the ‘Truth’ because none of us have any ownership on the ‘Truth’ no matter what our proof. Believe, just for a moment that you own it, and it becomes ephemeral.

I wish all parties well and they both find contentment and wealth of spirit whatever the outcome."

http://mickrooney.blogspot.com/2009/06/diggory-press-journey-so-far-quest-for.html

 

[MickRooney]

Agreed on your last point Mick, as I have said previously on this I don't think this is at all black and white. As much as it may irritate other forum members, I want specifics, not just opinions. As this has dragged on and on I think it is now time to get some facts.

And for those of you that think I am anti-Manning, although I have only just started publicly posting on the subject, I was lurking for over a year watching the case unfold.
My stance has changed from sitting on the fence to being highly sceptical of many of manning's claims, mainly through his lack of straight answers and his highly personal attack on diggory directors.

It seems to me that the ones with the facts are keeping tight lipped, and the ones who know only what they have seen on the net are the most voiciferous; at least I am asking the questions that no-one has yet bothered to ask.

It would have been better for all parties if the courts were allowed to judge this without the present 'internet trial by jury' without access to the facts or evidence. Manning's continued evasiveness on key points just makes me more dubtful of the reality of this '100 author complaints', or his "diggory 17".

Thank you, Inquisitor. At last, some unity in this whole thread! I think perhaps we all charged at this from our own viewpoints and what we all knew/understood/had read.

What I do think is clear about all this 'internet posted evidence' - it means nothing without it being backed up with full identifications - linked to Internet Provider proof to the authenticity of the material. Its no good posting up on sites about emails, screenshots etc, material which cannot go hand in hand with IP records to the time, date and source of the material, and that goes for both primary parties in this case, as well as the third party commentators. And if any party involved in this thinks that a legal court will accept anything less than this, then they are in for a rude awakening.

 

[James D. Macdonald]

I'm about one-half inch away from banning sleuthfortruth, Inquisitor, and Skiman.

If y'all are going to have some stupid Internet Drama, you can have it somewhere else.

 

[James D. Macdonald]

I think it would be fairer to allow the thread to continue.

The thread continues.

Without you.

 

[mercs]

From a personal point of view, it has helped me to avoid a potential headache. I'm sorry but regardless of who is right and who is wrong, the fact is that neither side have carried themselves in a professional manner. Everyone has cause for complaint -even the very best firms have customer service departments- but for it to get this nasty, this personal and this long winded is shocking...

 

[EgyptianGoddess]

....... but for it to get this nasty, this personal and this long winded is shocking...

nods.

 

[jfreedan]

"Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!"

Sorry, I couldn't help but say it.

I can't believe I read all of this. I feel for the authors who got scammed. Just reading a few of her posts gives me some appreciation for the nonsense they likely had to endure for months / years while trying to get their books from her.

Diggory Press, or whoever, should just refund the money and be done with it.

 

[Roger J Carlson]

I've said this before, but legitimate agents and publishers CANNOT have their reputations ruined by internet postings. The worst that can happen is their slushpiles will be reduced.

Now certainly, new agents and publishers can be hurt, but agents and publishers without a track record of actual sales cannot truly be considered legitimate. They may have good intentions, and they may not be scams, but they are not really legitmate.

It is the track record of sales that makes them legitmate. Once they have that, other industry professionals don't really care what is said about them on writer's forums.

Actually, there is one way legitimate agents or publishers can ruin their reputations on the internet, and that is by defending themselves. This is the agent's/publisher's version of the Author's Big Mistake.

 

[Momento Mori]

Inquisitor:
Even trying to get some average 'print runs' of pod books by any pod publisher is difficult or impossible; somewhere between two and fifty copies per books seems about average.

You'll find it difficult to get a figure for the average "print runs" of POD books because POD stands for Print On Demand, which means there are no print runs. Instead books are printed in response to direct orders. In the majority of cases, those orders will be placed by the author or friends or family of the author. Orders will seldom be made by significant members of the general public because unless the author has invested heavily in an effective advertising campaign, there will be no advertising for the book and no knowledge of it within the print industry because many (not all) POD publishers are not geared towards selling to the general public or towards generating publicity among critics, reviewers etc.

MM

 

[James D. Macdonald]

unless the author has invested heavily in an effective advertising campaign

Even if there's a significant advertising campaign, you'll seldom see large numbers of books sold to the public.

Ads for books in consumer publications (e.g. newspapers), on radio and TV, are, in general, to tell the public "You know that book you were planning to buy the moment it came out? It's out!"

Very, very few vanity titles fall into the category of "books everyone is planning to buy the moment they come out." (The latest Rowling, yes. The latest ... well, you know, I can't think of a famous POD author. Why do you suppose that is?)