Different Imprints – Illegal and Highly Irregular or The Norm?

Manning has claimed of Rosalind Franklin, the director of Diggory Press,  that she is engaged in illegal publishing activity. One of his alleged “proofs” for this is the fact Diggory Press Ltd have several publishing imprints.

Diggory Press’s website is very clear what their imprints are, why they are there and what they do. From their FAQs: http://www.diggorypress.com/faq.php#46

Q: Why do you have multiple names or imprints?

A: In publishing, an ‘imprint’ is a brand name under which a work is published. A publishing company may have multiple imprints; the different imprints being used to market the work to different demographic consumer segments. It makes a specific range of books much more clearly defined for the trade and the public.

Examples of well-known publishers who have multiple imprints include:

Harper Collins who have: Avon Books, Collins, Ecco Press, Harper & Row, Regan Books, William Morrow & Company and Zondervan
Macmillan Publishers who have: Bedford, Farrar, Straus & Giroux, Pan Books, St. Martins Press and Tor Books
Penguin Books who have: Puffin Books, Allen Lane, Ladybird Books, Michael Joseph, The Complete Idiot’s Guide and Dorling Kindersley

Diggory Press has four imprints:

Diggory Press for titles that interest us, such as Cornish books
Exposure Publishing – our general self-publishing side for ALL genres
Kingdom Come Publishing – our specific Christian self-publishing side
Meadow Books (rarely used now) – our nursing history side”

That’s pretty clear. And doing some basic research shows that having imprints is indeed common practice among many publishers.

Yet this is what Checkpoint Charlie of Checkpoint Press says –

“Meanwhile, we are investigating why Mrs F publishes titles under different imprints. Although illegal in the US, and a ‘highly irregular’ practice in the UK, we will have to wait for more data before sharing any conclusions.”

Illegal?! Highly irregular?! My foot!

STM’s even alleged that interpol are involved and that the ISBN agencies in the USA and UK are in talks to strike Diggory Press off for this alleged abuse!

Seen this guy’s true colours yet? Remember, this guy presents himself as an expert on publishing.

Advertisements

Comments (3)

Manning Proved To Have Lied About Court Judgments Entered Against Diggory Press

Compare the facts given in a previous article, List of the Diggory Press fallen, to what Manning for rival publisherCheckpoint Press said on November 4th 2008 to his authors’ list –

“Naturally I cannot go into too much detail, but I can report that some County Court Judgments have already been issued against Diggory / Mrs Franklin, and although she continues to try to manipulate the legal system to avoid accountability, we know that one outstanding judgment in the amount of over £1,300 UK pounds was paid this past week – under a certain amount of duress of course.. I know certain persons on this list were awaiting confirmation that Judgments had been issued and enforced – so I hope those persons can now use this information to move ahead with their own plans in regard to their business dealings with Diggory.”

This is what he said in December 08 –

“Several aggrieved authors have already taken independent action via the Small Claims Court in order to secure the monies owed to them, and despite Mrs Franklin’s increasingly desperate attempts to stall or circumvent the process, some are reporting success. Approximately three weeks ago for example, one County Court Judgment was enforced against Diggory Press to the tune of around £1,400 UK pounds.”

This is a barefaced lie as can be proven by anybody as County Court Judgments (CCJ’s) are a matter of record, very easy to check. NOT ONE CASE AGAINST DP HAS WON. They don’t have any CCJ’s against them as a business, and Rosalind Franklin does not have any CCJ’s against her personally. STM is not only lying about the fact there are successful judgments to encourage others to sue Diggory Press, but lying that this money had been paid “under duress” to even further smear Rosalind Franklin’s character. What a piece of work he is!

Comments (7)

List of the Diggory Press Fallen

As at today, 15/06/2009, 18 small claims court cases, all entered by, or directly linked toManning and his activity, have all failed against Diggory Press. Not one case has been found against Diggory Press, or Rosalind Franklin one of DP’s directors, for ANYTHING despite Manning’s (STM’s) claims to the contrary. This speaks volumes of Diggory Press. And speaks volumes of STM who has variously claimed all the cases are still ongoing and also that cases have been found against DP. These two lies alone should be enough to discredit everything STM says.

Who paid for the Diggory 17 claims to be entered? Manning of self publishing rival Checkpoint Press who did almost all the court paperwork too -(see who paid for the court fees)

Court Case Details

Case Number

8PZ00085, author “K.J.”– Author got worried after reading rumours on the internet and was led astray to file a speculative claim without any evidence OR had a case entered by STM on his behalf. Claim was entered by Manning.  This author “85” or their representative did not turn up at the first court allocation hearing or apologise for their absence. Case was dropped Aug/Sept 08.

8PZ00087, author “J.A.” Another frivolous claim. Claim was entered by Manning. This author “87” or their representative did not turn up at the first court allocation hearing or apologise for their absence. Case was dropped Aug/Sept 08.

8PZ00088, author “A.S.” A very unreasonable claim entered, seeking all the money back for services done (but the author changed his mind). Case dropped by the author December 08. Diggory Press graciously did not pursue recovering any of their costs that they could have done.

8PZ00089, “C.B.” Similar to above, work paid for had been done, but  author” 89″ changed their mind. Actually owed Diggory Press money they did not pursue from him despite what he put them through. He also was party with some others in the credit card fraud by attempting a fraudulent chargeback. Case was dropped Aug/Sept 08.

8PZ00090, “T.W.” This unreasonable claim included a republishing charge the same amount as Checkpoint Press charges. Lots of lies and misrepresentations in the claim.  The Diggory Press statement of case lodged at the court says:

“TW  has been impatient and unreasonable from the start, for instance claiming we were fraudulent and “all had gone quiet” and we were “not so keen to help” in the three days between his sending us a wire transfer of funds and us actually receiving this sum in our account!  He had the cheek to say it was poor customer care and sloppy business practice, and demanded we email him by 4pm of that day with confirmation of the date of publication or he would cancel his still pending wire transfer. Yet he knew the next step was us getting the actual payment and then we would commence work and correspondence with him. We have several other such emails from him including threats to ‘come down and see us’. Another time he sent us an email on the 25th September 2007 telling us a letter was in the post that day with the legal  info we needed. Yet on the 27th September because he had not got a response from us yet to that letter, he again claimed poor service! This has been a persistent pattern of behavior of his, with threats, insinuations, name calling and a complete lack of any reasonableness or tolerance.”

This author “90” or their representative did not turn up at the first court allocation hearing or apologise for their absence. The case was dropped Aug/Sept 08.

8PZ00091.  After reading “other people’s” claims on Manning’s site, and not based on any real factual experience of their own, “91” became ‘dubious’ and ‘worried’ based on rumour alone, not fact, and entered a speculative claim without any supporting evidence. “91’s” case ended 27th August 2008 by the author dropping it. Some factual evidence has been presented at Aug 08 allocation hearing just prior to this. “91” has evidently availed themself of the free publishing services offered by Checkpoint Press as a carrot to those who took court action against Diggory Press.

8PZ00093, author’s initials V.M.K.   Case entered by Manning without the claimant’s knowledge or permission. This author “93” or their representative did not turn up at the first court allocation hearing or apologise for their absence. Fraudulent and vexatious and frivolous case – VMK was not a customer of Diggory’s yet was supposedly claiming £250 for the cost of a normal computer CD sent by normal post! Case ended August 2008 when VMK first found out about it and wrote into the courts saying they knew nothing about it and had not given their permission.

8PZ00094,  author “C.V.” Another speculative claim based on rumour. This author “94” or their representative did not turn up at the first court allocation hearing or apologise for their absence. Case was dropped Aug/Sept 08.

8PZ00095. This author was in tears after the allocation hearing as he realised what a farce it was. His unreasonable and speculative case (he issued a credit card chargeback after less than 12 days of paying DP!) was dropped by him Aug. 08.

8PZ00096, author “M.C.” – speculative case without any evidence, entered by Manning. Case ended by M.C. in August 2008 who apologises to the court and to Diggory Press and says he should not have listened to the organiser, Manning.

8PZ00097, author’s initials “J.C.”  Case entered by Manning without the claimant’s knowledge or permission. This author or their representative did not turn up at the first court allocation hearing or apologise for absence. The claim included asking for £200 for the cost to republish, the same amount as STM happened to charge at the time for publishing. Case ended August 2008 when author first found out about it and wrote into the courts saying they knew nothing about it and had not given their permission.  J.C. is now claiming Manning is threatening him into saying to the police investigation into this that he had given permission when he’d not. Had free work on his book done for him by STM as a carrot, yet as can be seen STM was trying to claim this back from Diggory Press!

8PZ00098, author name Karina Kantas. This must be the most petty case of the lot, quibbling over DP asking for £10 to redirect her books to a new address after having stored them for free for her for months after they’d been returned by the courier for persistent non collection despite cards left for the author. This author or their representative did not turn up at the first court allocation hearing or apologise for their absence. Case was dropped Aug/Sept 08.

8PZ00099, author’s initials “M.F.”  This was a vexatious claim and the author or their representative did not turn up at the first court allocation hearing or apologise for their absence.  Claim was dropped in September 2008.

8PZ00100, author’s initials “G.H.” This claim was dropped by the author in March 2008. It was basically along the lines of “I am suing Diggory because of the way they treat other authors”.  The “other authors” being fabrications as previously discussed on this site. Many of the other 17  had said something along the same lines, “we’ve heard Rosalind Franklin is a horrible woman and she shouldn’t be able to treat people like this…” even when Rosalind had never been horrible to them or treated them badly!

8BB00962, author  “Jackie Coupe”. This wasn’t one of the original 17 claims but this vexatious claim was still linked to Manning. Jackie can be seen to be giving Manning a rousing endorsement on Naymz, calling him “a man of integrity and intelligence”. Jackie attempted a credit card chargeback many months after the work was done for her. The case struck out December 2008.

Other Cases: I will post other case details as and when I get them OR am released to reveal this information.

Comments (5)

One of the Diggory Press 17 Apologises For Court Case

The following is a screenshot showing an email from another of the so-called Diggory 17, dated August 31st 2008. The author, who for privacy reasons I shall call “M.C.” was the claimant in case number 8PZ00096 against Diggory Press. In his email, “M.C.” apologises to Diggory Press for bringing a case against them. He says he should not have listened to the case’s organiser, Manning.

Manning owns Checkpoint Press, a rival self publishing company to Diggory Press, and has conducted an ongoing smear and harassment campaign against DP which has included lodging multiple claims against them. So far on this blog, I’ve shown that at least 2 of the well-publicised 17 small claims court actions against Diggory Press were entered by STM without the named person’s knowledge or permission.

This one author in the email here, “M.C.”, because of Manning directly egging him on into wrongly believing Diggory Press were not to be trusted with supposedly numerous other defrauded authors also all going after DP too, wrongly thought he’d got a legitimate case against DP as “others” had too. Manning was also offering to do all the court paperwork and even pay for the court cases on author’s behalf. And give free publishing services as an extra carrot! So what was to stop M.C. entering a purely speculative case and say he thought he’d made many more sales than he’d been paid royalties on?   M.C.’s claim was unfounded and based on lies, speculation and rumour – and wishful thinking.

M.C., sadly, is yet another victim of Manning, the so-called “author’s champion.”

The text of the email states:

“Subject: M_____C______ wishes to end court action

This is to state that M_______C________  of address ______________

wishes to stop actions against Diggory Press/Exposure Publising/Meadow Publishing case number 8PZ00096 in Bodmin County Court.

I wish to apologise to the court and to Diggory Press.

I now feel I should not have started this action and should not have listened to the organiser — Manning.

I repeat I just want to end this action. I have already emailed the court a week ago and I have also emailed Diggory Press stating this.

Thank you for your time.

M_________C___________”

As at today, 15/06/2009, 18 small claims court cases, all entered by, or directly linked to Manning and his activity, have all failed against Diggory Press. Not one case has been found against Diggory Press, or Rosalind Franklin one of DP’s directors, for ANYTHING despite STM’s claims to the contrary. This speaks volumes.

Comments (19)

The First Unauthorised Court Claim against Diggory Press by Manning

Manning  entered a claim against rival self publishing business Diggory Press in the Bodmin small claims court, according to at least two of the named parties themselves, without the named party’s knowledge or permission.

The first claim, for the record, was also for over and above the amount originally paid to Diggory Press. And the second claim was from someone who wasn’t even a Diggory Press customer.

I have deleted some identifying details for privacy reasons. However, all this information (and more) is available on the court records re case 8PZ00097,  author’s initials J.C.  The other known case being number 8PZ00093, author’s initials V.M.K. So that’s at least 2 unauthorised claims that are known about among the “Diggory 17”.

The letter below was sent to the courts and to Diggory Press in September 2008 from the “named author” J.C. when according to him he FIRST became aware of the action lodged by Manning in January 2008 in J.C.’s name:-

I think that’s pretty clear.

I’ve been informed that in the last few weeks J.C. is alleging Manning is now threatening him, apparently trying to get J.C. to retract his statements to the police and to the courts on STM entering unauthorised fraudulent claims.

This is very serious stuff.

You might also want to see the post on Who paid the court fees.

Comments (6)

Who Paid The Diggory Press 17’s Court Fees?

As I have previously said in other posts on this site, Manning didn’t just lie about Diggory Press. He didn’t just smear them and their director Rosalind Franklin. He didn’t just harass them through a variety of means. He attempted to mislead DP authors to believe there were many authors defrauded and abused by Diggory and encouraged them to take legal action against Diggory Press through the small claims court. He knew there was not a shred of truth in it and DP were not guilty as charged, but he didn’t care; – these authors were his puppets and he was using them to further harass and smear Rosalind Franklin, DP’s director, someone whom STM is evidently obsessional about. He sees her everywhere.

Unfortunately, the nature of self publishing is authors are only too ready to believe the worst of a self publishing company. Especially when their book sales are not as good as they first hoped. If the devil’s advocate whispers in their ear they “must” have sold a thousand copies when they’ve only, in fact, sold three copies, the deluded author will want to believe it. So STM encouraged weak-minded authors who knew no better to speculate without any evidence and enter a court case against Diggory “just in case” there were missing royalties they could benefit from.

Manning was not just offering to do all the court paperwork on these author’s behalf as their “champion”, he was offering to pay for it too and also offered free publishing services to any authors choosing this route in addition to this as an extra carrot. So what’s to lose for the author by giving it a shot?! No money, no effort and no proof required, just give it a go! And some did.

It says a lot of Diggory’s excellent service at that point that despite STM’s relentless canvassing of so many of their authors for so long, and his campaign of lies, STM could only dredge up a few people who would take the bite. Even when he was paying for it and doing all the work! So few real people in fact that STM even felt obliged to make up cases in the names of people who didn’t know about, let alone give their permission, to enter cases on “their” behalf.

It’s also interesting that the bulk of the claims in addition to asking for the whole amount they originally paid DP also asked for republishing costs – “coincidentally” the exact same amount Manning’s Checkpoint Press just so happened to charge at that time ….. It’s also no coincidence that the majority of the Diggory 17 claims fell at the first hurdle in August 2008. Yet Manning was claiming til Miriam Franklin (ETPW) busted him on it in April, that they were all still ongoing.

Comments (7)

The Diggory Press Article In Private Eye – The Truth Behind The Claims

A Private Eye journalist sent an email to Diggory Press in the afternoon of the 16/01/2008 asking them some questions –  and gave Diggory Press only 24 hours to respond to some serious allegations put to them. They then effectively set Diggory Press up by claiming that DP were non responsive to everyone by saying “Diggory Press failed to reply to this (their) correspondence either and answer came there none…” not mentioning only 24 hours had been given to Diggory Press to respond to the journalist’s long list of questions! The tiny deadline given is highly relevant to whether it was fair or not to expect a response from any company in this kind of timeframe. Especially as the journalist in question had NOT warned DP she was going to press, only said please could they contact her by 6pm the next day. That’s not the same thing.

And so Private Eye were really biased, unfair and unreasonable in distorting their article to imply DP were uncontactable and basically crooks who take the money from their customers and run. Which is far from the truth.

On the 23rd January, a very one-sided Private Eye article about Diggory Press was out on the street. This would probably have been finalised and gone to press some days before this. This was not fair on DP at all for other reasons than the short deadline. It wasn’t just the lack of opportunity for DP to give their side.

Private Eye claimed “The Eye knows of at least 17 writers pursuing Diggory Press in the small claims court, for sums between £200 and £5,000.” yet failed to mention all 17 cases were associated with and sponsored by Checkpoint Press of Achill Island, Ireland. This is a crucial point.

In addition, apart from all 17 cases being linked to Manning, many of the cases were really ludicrous. Such as someone who was not even a customer claiming £250 for a lost CD they’d allegedly sent DP by normal mail. And another one quibbling over a re-delivery charge of £10 to send a box of books to a third party address after she’d consistently failed to collect the books from her courier’s office the first time around.

And, as has since been proven to the courts, at least two of the claims were entered by Manning in the names of people who knew nothing at all about the claims being lodged, and had not given him their permission to act on their behalf! This is serious!

Any journalist worth their salt should have seen these things and smelt a rat. And should have said it too in their article. But they didn’t. That’s not right and that’s not fair.

As mentioned before, their deadline was really unreasonable. However Diggory Press responded – albeit out of the time given –

“Dear [deleted name for privacy]

You have been incorrectly informed on a multitude of counts. While there may be a small handful of people who are mistrustful, misguided, and misinformed, we know the main instigator and ring leader for the libellous and highly defamatory complaints, inciting a tiny minority of people to worry about nothing, is in fact, a competitor who has done this as part of a malicious defamation campaign – you should note this carefully and beware: he has lied on multiple counts (which we can prove) and makes claims that would be impossible for any publishing company to do, even if they were inclined to do so.

I refer you to our website for detailed answers to your questions and many more. Our website is very open, clear and also explicit how we work and contains everything you need to know. However briefly –

Why will you not give authors detailed sales figures or accounts?

A: We do keep extremely detailed accounts and we also provide a detailed cost breakdown for any purchases/services and also detailed sales and royalty statements WHEN THEY ARE DUE for free as per our t & cs or for £5 at anytime upon request.

Why have you refused to return materials such as photographs?

A: We do not refuse to return any of the author’s own materials, and never have done!

Why will you not remove author’s books from your website when they ask?

A: We remove books from production immediately when we receive a request to, so new printings are no longer printed or made for sale anywhere in the world (including from our website) with immediate effect, and the book is also removed from being listed on our website, providing there is no balance outstanding owed to us from the author, or the author is not otherwise contractually obliged to us such as with the Platinum scheme’s terms.

Why have you been so difficult to contact/failed to reply to correspondence?

A: We are a web based business and operate the way we list on our website. We are not ‘difficult to contact’, but we are not a postal service and never have been, nor do we provide a telephone service and we specifically state this too. Contact is via the web only, and if authors do not like this, and expect more from us for a £30 publishing setup fee (as some do, thinking themselves the exception), then they should have read what we clearly state on our website before signing up with us and agreeing to our terms and conditions. Our way of working is via email only and we state this VERY clearly.

We do not always respond to repetitive emails asking the same thing when the author has already been informed of the answer – and any other professional company would also take the same view. Regardless, this is quite reasonable of us and we also explicity state this modus operandi on our website.  Another example of an unreasonable demand from an author would be if an author expected a free update report on royalties every few days – as some do. We consider this highly unreasonable, especially given the tiny publishing fee, and therefore such repeat requests are not always responded to, or the author recieves a response referring them to our FAQS or the link to buy a mini statement as for a very small administration fee they can be updated as regularly as they wish. All our services are bolt-on extras, and have to be given the tiny amounts we charge and our small profit margins.

Have you withheld any royalties owed?

A: Never – and we can prove this.

We can also prove that we are quite the opposite of ‘bad guys’ in the self publishing industry and have been scrupilously honest, more than fair, worked to exacting standards and have consistently undercharged our authors – going against business advice – and if anything have been ‘too fair’ to them at our own expense by being too cheap. We are the ‘good guys’, and thus I do take this defamatory complaint you have received about us extremely personally and like a slap in the face as nothing could be possibly further from the truth. The fact is we do 10 times more, for 10 times less than other self-publishing companies we know and produce a far better product.

The logical question has also to be asked: why would we ‘rob’ authors of one cent on royalties on a handful of sales (as a tiny minority claim we do), when we could legitimately charge many hundreds of pounds more (or even thousands of pounds) on the initial setup and also charged much more on print prices? We know authors would pay it – however we refuse to take advantage of authors in this way as I believe in fair trading.”

Private Eye never retracted their allegations about Diggory Press, even after getting this response from Diggory Press saying all they needed to know to properly investigate it and get at the real story. And the journalist never responded either.

Ah!  The great British free press, eh?!

Comments (9)

« Newer Posts · Older Posts »