Thursday, 15 November 2012

Does Duns Hate Women - An Open Reply

Jeremy Duns states on this blog that he is a feminist. 

This is a ridiculous thing to say.

I will leave aside the question of whether a man can be a feminist - there is an interesting discussion summarized here. 

What is certainly clear is that Duns is not a feminist. Why not? Because he put his name to a vile article glorifying violence against women.

I blogged here about an article Duns wrote for The Times describing how many women died in each Bond film, as this was an achievement. You can read it online here.

People can form their own opinions. To me, it is rubbish like this that creates a culture in which women are assaulted by men every day in their thousands. 

From his response, on this blog, Duns seems shame-faced about this article as he should be. 

After pitching a different article to The Times, he claims, this one appeared. ' A few days later, the article you have linked to appeared. It was the first I knew of it. It’s a complete fluff piece', he writes. 

This is not good enough.

Are you disowning this article? Your name appeared on it.

If you want to disown it, you need to take the following steps. 

1. Write a public apology on your blog disowning the article. 

2. State how much you were paid for it, with documentary evidence. 

3. Donate the money to a recognized women's charity.

4. Write a letter to the editor of The Times asking for your name to be removed from the article, and publish the letter online, together with the response. 

If you are not willing to take these steps, I am completely justified in describing you as a women-hater, that is as someone who celebrates and glorifies violence against women, and who women's groups should be campaigning against. 

Violence against women is the most major violation against human rights in the world today. There is an excellent summary of the issues here.

It is the casual acceptance among men - typified in Duns's work - that violence against women is okay that creates this problem. That is why it is important to stand up against it. 


  1. I see you have no answer to my previous questions so have switched tack again.

    As I've already explained, I didn't write the 2009 article you're referring to. A journalist called Jack Malvern did, and added my name to it because in the last paragraph he mentioned a screenplay I'd discovered (and which I later wrote about at length in the Sunday Times). I invited you to contact me so I could prove this. Oddly enough, you didn't. Why not?

    I didn't write the article, but even if I had done I wouldn't have been ashamed of it. It wasn't a great piece of journalism, but it didn't glorify violence against women. Its title was 'Prospective James Bond girls beware: bedding 007 is a deadly affair' and it opened 'Women! Are you thinking of having a relationship with James Bond? Think! Almost a third of Bond’s sexual partners have died since the British superspy began his adventures, and the death toll is rising sharply...' So if anything it was pointing out that the Bond films glorify violence against women, and warning women off going near Bond as a result. But clearly this was tongue and cheek, as Bond is a fictional character.

    People can indeed form their own opinions - perhaps some will think, as you claim to, that the article is responsible in some way for a culture in which women are assaulted by men every day in their thousands. I think most people will think that is absurd. It's a silly article. And one I didn't write. I don't think I was paid, either, but if I had been it would have been for the weeks I spent with the paper working on the story they didn't run - not for Jack Malvern's article that mentioned my work in a couple of sentences at the end.

    If you really feel that this article - which I didn't write - was vile, I suggest you write a letter to the editor of The Times objecting to it and asking for it to be removed from their website, and publish your letter online, together with their response.

    And why is it you are so completely unconcerned about the real sexism I've pointed out to you from Stephen Leather. His reference to Ursula Mackenzie, the Vice President of the Publisher’s Association, as a ‘silly girl’ – in the comments here:

    His thoughts about young Thai women in the red light scene here:

    Or, if you're as concerned as you claim to be about liberal issues, his virulent racism?

    I'm not sure where you want to go with this. Perhaps you'll convince someone I'm a sexist on the basis of a fluff article I didn't write three years ago, but I doubt it. You're not just wasting my time, but your own. If you really care about the issues you're writing about here, I think you could be putting it to much greater use.

  2. PS I think this has gone on long enough now. You are of course free to feel I've acted in a way that is worse than the News of the World hacking a missing schoolgirl's phone, or that this three-year-old article about James Bond films that I didn't even write is vile misogyny, but I am also free to disagree. I think I've listened to your points as reasonably as possible, considering, but unless you produce some proof of your identity I'm not going to engage with you anymore. If you think I've broken the law, report me. If you object to anything I've written, contact the newspaper or magazine in question, or Twitter or Blogger if it is them. Or carry on with this blog writing about how evil and vile you think I am. But I won't be replying any more.

    Jeremy Duns

  3. I'm not sure why Duns thinks that by attacking me he makes his own position any better! You might think of removing his first comment, Maria, as it is yet another unprovoked attack on me! But your call, of course, I'm a big fan of free speech. It does show what a nasty piece of work he is And I am still unable to back up any journalistic qualifications he has other than a short spell on a Belgian newspaper which apparently didn't go to too well....

  4. Hello again, Stephen, I'll reply to you seeing as, unlike 'Maria' - or is it 'Emily'? - you are at least using your real name. On this occasion, anyway.

    I worked for the Brussels-based magazine The Bulletin for seven years, and it went fine, thanks - I left as its deputy editor. It closed a couple of months ago, but I left six years ago so I'm not sure what you mean. Perhaps you can clarify.

    I find it odd that you call me a nasty piece of work, considering this comment you made from your verified Amazon account earlier this year:

    'A doctor once told me that the symptoms of Alzheimer's and Aids were very similar. If your loved one starts to display the symptoms, the best thing to do is to take them into the middle of a forest and leave them there. If they find their way out, don't sleep with them.'

    Or your own misogynist comments:

    Or your virulently racist remarks about race and immigration, just a fraction of which can be seen here:

    You've very conspicuously ignored the question I asked last time you commented. You claimed I published 'personal details' about your address: are you saying that, like the abusively racist 'stephenleather', you, Stephen Leather, also have a residence in Grantully Street in London?

    If you aren't the 'stephenleather' who posted all those comments on Yahoo's forums, but just happen to have lived in the same London street as him, do please simply say. If you are him, what are you so ashamed of, big shot? When you don't think too many people are looking you're happy to run your mouth off to attack immigrants for seeking to build a better life in Britain, and indeed to say that Britain should 'get rid' of all immigrants. But it seems you don't have the courage of your political convictions when called on it outside of that forum. If you have these far right views, stand by them. What are you so scared of, Stephen?

  5. Maria -

    That is not, obviously, your name, and your points are, obviously, spurious and ridiculous. But since you persist, let's persist with you. You have focused on the issue of Steve Roach and Stephen Leather, and somehow (he says, with heavy irony) come to the conclusion that Jeremy Duns is at fault. Even more absurdly, you have attempted to do so from a feminist perspective.

    Here are some facts. Stephen Leather is a bully (to the extent that a man like him is equipped to bully anyone). But he is also a misogynist. In arguing with me, for example, he decided that insulting my wife's appearance was a legitimate tactic. He has proven links with a man who writes incest pornography about men having sex with their own daughters. He has admitted paying money for access to women's company. (There is far more, of course. Within the publishing industry, from everything that has been said to me, he stands out very clearly as that awkward thing: someone despised personally by pretty much everybody who has ever been within a mile of him, but who happens to make enough money).

    If you're truly interested in misogyny (which, of course, you are not), why not stop twisting yourself into knots chasing Jeremy Duns over some dipshit article about nothing at all, and focus your attentions in the obvious direction? Well, the answer is painfully clear, isn't it?

  6. Maria -

    Just a quick question. You say of someone writing an article collating the number of Bond women who are killed that "it is rubbish like this that creates a culture in which women are assaulted by men every day in their thousands".

    I disagree, but I do agree that such a culture exists. How do you feel a rich, white, middle-aged man exercising those privileges in the Thai bar scene feeds into that? Do you have an opinion on that?

  7. I will be replying to this posts by Duns and his loyal sidekick Steve Mosby in time. But let me make one thing clear. They are free to blog about Leather as much as they wish. This blog is about Duns.

  8. Maria -

    Yes, of course. But you're feigning an interest in this issue from a feminist perspective. The issue is between Jeremy Duns, Steve Roach and Stephen Leather. You initially chose to attack Jeremy from a legal perspective, which failed, and now you're trying to attack him from a feminist one, which is also failing.

    I'm simply pointing out that if feminism was really your interest in the matter, no sensible, impartial person would choose to attack Jeremy for misogyny over Stephen Leather, who is transparently a misogynist. If you wish your blog to be about Jeremy, that's - of course - fine, but your chosen line of attack and target reveals your obvious and undeclared bias. *Shrugs*

  9. I do worry about Jeremy Duns' lack of journalistic qualifications and skills, frankly.

    I have worked as a staff reporter on some of the world's best newspapers and fact-checking is a skill that gets drummed into you from Day One. So why does Duns not even make the most basic of checks?

    Much of what he tweets and writes about me is just plain wrong. But have a look at -

    and -

    Good to see that he is publicly admitting that he is a moron. I of course couldn't possibly comment. I do wonder if the papers that he claims he works for realise that Jeremy Duns tweets information without checking on its validity?

    Keep up the good work, Maria.

  10. Wow. That's scraping the barrel even by your standards, Stephen. And I see that, once again, you're unable to admit to your own political views. I was wrong about Pele a couple of days ago, true. But I'm right about you. You're an abusive misogynistic racist bully who uses fake identities to sell your books. What a truly pathetic man you are.

  11. This blog is still going? fucking ridiculous.

  12. I think it's a bit hypocritical of 'bestseller' Steve Mosby to use the term misogynist when he uses abusive language like this in public -