Diggory Press / Exposure Publishing

Gill, thanks for your post. I also got your email; I'll respond privately.

I've already merged the Diggory threads; the link given a couple of messages back leads back to this thread.

- Victoria

Gill, I'm sorry this has happened to you. My heart goes out to you. I hope the best for you in your lawsuit. Also, I pray you get back what is rightfully yours.

The best of luck to you, Gill - and thanks for warning others.

Hey everyone.

I'm Karina Kantas, another author who's having problems.
I've left blogs, comments around the internet about the court case and RF treatment towards her authors.
RF actualy came on to my myspace page and defended her company (in disguise of course.)on my blog, Court proceedings.

It makes interesting reading, if you care to take a look.

Power to SP authors!!!!!

http://www.myspace.com/karinakantas


Come and join me on Yuwie. It's a great network for promotion.
http://r.yuwie.com/karinakantas

Just to say, Karine. I'm on broadband and I couldn't get your myspace blog to load--I gave it at least a couple of minutes.

veinglory said:

Just to say, Karine. I'm on broadband and I couldn't get your myspace blog to load--I gave it at least a couple of minutes.

Click to expand...

It seems to be working now.

It was always there. But wouldn't load up. Now I can get it (with music) after about 30 seconds. The avergae period most people with wait for a site to come up is apparently 7 seconds. I suspect the percentage that leave the second they hear music is also quite high.

Diggory Press - Court Hearing Update

There is an update on the current issues discussed in this thread available here from Stephen Manning.

http://mickrooney.blogspot.com/2008/08/update-august-2008-diggory-press-court.html

Diggory Press - Warning !

Hi,

I wanted to use Diggory Press (aka Exposure Publishing) for my book, so I ordered and paid for their publishing services on their website in the beginning of June 2008. I haven't heard anything from them since. They promise on their website to publish the book within two weeks, but nothing has been done. I've send them various emails, but they don't answer any of my emails. So I filed a complaint with paypal, but it seems that even though I'm in my right, they can't pay me back because Diggory Press doesn't answer them either. Diggory Press doesn't provide a phone number, so it's impossible to call them.

I don't expect to hear anything from them ever again. It's clear that the people at Diggory Press / Exposure publishing are dishonest. They're just taking money from people without delivering services or goods.

So don't use Diggory Press / Exposure Publishing, because you will loose your money and time.

Good luck with your publishing adventure.

On 10 January 2009 Rebecca O'Connor published a letter regarding Diggory Press in her 'Troubleshooter' page in the Money Supplement of The Times newspaper in the United Kingdom. Essentially this is a forum where she tries to help people who are having problems with companies, banks, utilities etc.

The letter was from John Munro in Liverpool who had paid £163.40 to Diggory Press for them to publish his manuscript. 15 months later he still had not received the published manuscript and had not received a satisfactory response to his emails or letters. If you go back through the pages of this thread, you can see that this is an experience common to people who have paid Diggory Press.

To quote the first line of Rebecca O'Connor's response:

Diggory's emails to you are enough to make one doubt its credentials as a publisher, littered as they are with spelling mistakes and questionable grammar.

Click to expand...

She goes on to describe Mr Munro's dealings with Diggory Press as being "torturous", including the fact that:

Diggory offered to "clean-up" the manuscript, but this, according to your account, produced four pages of errors

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, Rebecca O'Connor had little luck in trying to broker a solution. Diggory's website has apparently been removed from the web and she could not find a phone number for it. She does suggest that people pay £1 to Companies House (www.companieshouse.gov.uk) for the company's address.

Her advice to Mr Munro was to write to the address and enclose a copy of her column in the hope of shaming them into returning his cash.

Given the behaviour displayed on behalf of Diggory Press on numerous forums (including making threats of libel), it's difficult to believe that either of its directors - Rosalind and Nigel Franklin - have any sense of shame.

MM

Hi there, sleuthfortruth. I've just looked at your blog, which has been in existence just over a week, where you investigate cyber crime. I've only found nine entries in those eight days, and they all appear to deal with Stephen Manning.

Do you investigate anything else?

And what connection, if any, do you have with Diggory Press? Since (unlike Manning) you don't give your name, and you're posting through an anonymizer, well, I'm kinda curious.

How do you react to my statement that Diggory is, and always has been, a vanity press?

James,

While I applaud your challenge to 'sleuthfortruth' to comment on Diggory Press being a vanity press - I think this whole issue goes beyond whether a company offering author services considers themselves a vanity press or not, though, I do appreciate the implications of what the worse kind of vanity presses can do to an author and their book.

The case of Diggory Press and its owner Rosalind Franklin has been going on now since late 2007 and the above posts only scratch the surface of a dispute and court action(s) which would rival the greatest espionage novel (Rivalry, hatred, religion, fraud, death threats, subterfuge, hidden identity, forgery of documentations etc).

sleuthfortruth said:

The truth in this case is found by investigating Stephen Manning, the accuser, whose life is surrounded by deception, whose complaints against Diggory Press are full of lies and contradictions, and who - and authors must realise this - as an owner of a rival self publishing company he might have a vested financial interest in smearing his rivals/getting them out of the way. There were no complaints about Diggory Press on the net before he started stirring things. And his company has grown by taking ex Diggory authors. My blog is not about Stephen Manning. Obviously a lot of the recent posts have been related to his lies, as his victims are not just Diggory Press. I'm not sure why you're asking what my reaction is to your saying that Diggory Press is a vanity press. Yes, of course it is. But that's never been in dispute, has it? The fact they self publish and are upfront about it doesn't make them bad. Or does it in your book?

Click to expand...

sleuthfortruth,

You were asked pertinent questions by James for reasons you are very well aware of.
1. To ascertain who you actually are.
2. To ascertain what (if any) connection you have with Diggory Press.

I would suggest, at the very least, you PM James with these details.

With respect, Rosalind, we've been around the block with all this nonsense once too often, haven't we?
Would you care to explain how you believe Stephen Manning's life is 'surrounded by deception' or is this an effort by you to deflect attention, yet again, away from the direct issue of Diggory Press' legal case?

You claim Stephen Manning's Checkpoint Press is a 'rival' to Diggory Press. I would suggest anyone here reading this should check out both presses on Amazon and compare the catalogue listings. I'm sure Checkpoint is highly flattered to be seen as a rival!

"There were no complaints about Diggory Press on the net before he started stirring things. And his company has grown by taking ex Diggory authors."

Am I watching an episode of Scooby Doo? 'I'd have gotten away with it if it wasn't for those pesky kids mentioning my indescrestions.'

And your blog is about Stephen Manning, almost entirely, so much so, that Wordpress suspended your first incarnation of it and you did it all over again on Bravenet. Some identification please...and some answers...

One hundred persons involved in a case is not the same as one hundred cases. Does anyone have details on this?

sleuthfortruth said:

My blog is not about Stephen Manning.

Click to expand...

Pull the other one. It's got bells on.

I'm not sure why you're asking what my reaction is to your saying that Diggory Press is a vanity press. Yes, of course it is. But that's never been in dispute, has it? The fact they self publish and are upfront about it doesn't make them bad. Or does it in your book?

Click to expand...

No, the answer has never been in dispute.

Vanity press publication is a bad idea for any author. Since whether going with Diggory is a good idea is the whole point of this thread, it's pertinent.

But since you're in a question-answering mood, one more time:

Who are you?

What is your connection to Diggory Press?

sleuthfortruth:
There were no complaints about Diggory Press on the net before he started stirring things. And his company has grown by taking ex Diggory authors.

Click to expand...

Clearly complaints don't just exist on the net - see the letter I quote on the previous page that was sent to The Times.

sleuthfortruth::
I've just read Stephen Manning's latest concoted nonsense in his complaint to wordpress. That he would have the cheek to complain to them about defamation and libel when everything I've said has been backed by the evidence, and is the truth, and everything he says is not backed by evidence, and is a lie, really takes the biscuit. I challenge STM once again to answer the questions and stop evading them by bluster.

Click to expand...

If you have the evidence that you claim then hand it over to the relevant attorneys given that there is an on-going court case. If you're working for Diggory Press then it is highly unprofessional of you to be conducting any kind of internet discussion in relation to it while the case is still ongoing. If you're not working for Diggory Press, you're doing them no favours with your hysterical commentary and accusations.

MM

I have just posted about this on my site for those interested in the issues discussed.

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

Hi there, Inquisitor.

Three questions for you:

1) Who are you?
2) What's your connection with Diggory?
3) Is there any reason not to assume that you're the same individual as "sleuthfortruth"?

Inquisitor, I'll echo Jim's questions and make some additional comments of my own.

Inquisitor:
I'm not so sure about this, nor are the courts it seems.

Click to expand...

In what sense? The court has yet to hear Stephen's case, ergo it has not made a decision and cannot make a decision.

With regard to other complaints about Diggory Press, as Stephen says, some cases were dropped due to costs, others were directed into mediation (which is usually suggested when the costs are wracking up and mediation will produce a speedier result). Neither of these facts suggests that Diggory Press is blameless.

Inquisitor:
STM belatedly concedes that his "diggory 17" are now down to five, not quite so headline grabbing. Stephen, does this diggory five include the two independent litigants that don't want to be associated with you?

Click to expand...

Inquisitor - with the 2 independent litigants - do you know for a fact that they don't want to be associated with Stephen's case and if not, do you know why not? You seem to think that the fact that the 7 people (because that's how many people you're acknowledging want to sue this alleged publisher) aren't all joined in the one case somehow impugns Stephen's credibility.

It doesn't.

Some people choose to litigate separately because it can be difficult to bring a joined case in the English courts as joinder is in itself a technical area of law.

Whichever way you try to spin it, there are still 7 people taking legal action against Diggory Press and that says more about Diggory Press than it does against the litigants.

Inquisitor:
Out of the "diggory 17" how many actually attended court on the day?
Stephen, you were there, please answer this.

Click to expand...

Inquisitor it doesn't matter how many people turned up at court. The beauty of hiring a lawyer is that you don't have to turn up at court for the case to be held.

If you're trying to make some kind of snide point about the legitimacy of Stephen's case, then I think you'll find that all you've actually done is make yourself look remarkably ignorant and somewhat desperate to sling mud.

Inquisitor:
There was a couple of recent blogs by 'slueth for truth" which stephen initially responded to in his usual pompous style, but then the blogs were pulled. Does he have something to hide? (the blogs questioned his diploma mill uncredited phd, his claim of being a qualified christian minister, an 'adjunct' professor, exploring his olympic skiing testimonial and openly accusing him of a dirty tricks campaign against his business competitor, diggory press)

Click to expand...

You seem remarkably familiar with the contents of a blog that no longer exists. Is this because you're the one who wrote the blog or did you contribute to or support it in some other way?

Either way (and to repeat my earlier comment), if these comments relate to an on-going court case (which they seem to do) and are aimed at discrediting a litigant (which they certainly seem intended to do), then Stephen is well within his rights to request the internet host to take it down.

Personally, I don't see what your rather grubby little insinuations have to do with complaints about the service and quality of products received from Diggory Press. In fact, to repeat my earlier comment, in repeating them on this forum all you've actually done is make yourself look remarkably ignorant and somewhat desperate to sling mud.

Inquisitor:
There may be something to this diggory case, but there isn't much evidence right now.

Click to expand...

How do you know what the evidence is? Have you read the court papers? Have you seen the bundles? This is supposition on your part and in any event, it's not your place to determine what the evidence is - that's the job of the court and it will make a determination once the case is presented.

Inquisitor:
The Gaurdian may know of the diggory 17, but all they knew and reported was of seventeen names on a small claims court paperwork, hence my question to STM as to how many actually turned up on the day.

Click to expand...

Actually it was The Times and the letter related to one complainant and had nothing to do with Stephen's case (that I'm aware of).

The fact is, a national UK newspaper doubts the credibility of Diggory Press as a publisher and when you see the type of posts made by people who support it - people such as Inquisitor - it reinforces a general opinion of Diggory Press as a rather shoddy and unpleasant outfit supported by shoddy and unpleasant people.

MM

Inquisitor said:

I'm not so sure about this, nor are the courts it seems. There might be more to this case than meets the eye, it certainly isn't quite the open and shut case portrayed by Stephen Manning.

Click to expand...

Looks pretty open and shut to me.
Particularly when the likes of you show up here and on their first post attempt to smear someone who has posted in convincing detail

Why don't you tell us who you are and what your interest in the case is?

Inquisitor has also been making a guest appearance over on 'sleuth for truth'.

http://sleuthfortruth.blog.com/2009...ompany-site-even-more-poisonous-than-thought/

It seems that most, if not all, of the people who turn up to defend Ms. Franklin are in fact... Ms. Franklin.

Inquisitor:
Momento, if this were a simple open and shut case then why would it be scheduled for a five day hearing?

Click to expand...

Erm ... where did I say this was a simple open and shut case? I did not. In fact, if you go back and read what I did say, I talked about how joinder can make cases more complicated.

Inquisitor:
as for the two unrelated cases, it was something I gleaned from the posts written by manning himself. Please correct me as to the situation if anyone knows for

Click to expand...

Okay, so you're insinuating that the two unrelated cases are unrelated because the plaintiffs don't want anything to do with Stephen, but you don't actually know this for a fact. You're simply reading Stephen's posts and jumping to conclusions that support your own, somewhat biased view.

Good to know.

Inquisitor:
With regard to your question as to wether I have read the court papers, no, not as yet. That would also include lots of other people who have commented on this case to

Click to expand...

So you haven't read the court papers, therefore you don't know what the evidence is and yet you feel that you're able to make statements about how there isn't much evidence to support the case against Diggory.

I haven't commented on Stephen's court case, but I've seen the reports about Diggory and I've read what was written about the company in a national newspaper and I've seen the frankly ludicrous behaviour on the part of those who support Diggory Press, all of which has led me to draw my own conclusions as to his legitimacy as a publisher.

You say yourself that you have no interest in or knowledge of modern publishing. Perhaps you should hang around these boards for a while to get an idea of how publishing should work and the pitfalls to avoid with self-publishing and vanity publishing outfits like Diggory.

MM