Friday, 27 December 2013

Does Jeremy Duns Hate Gays?

In my views the campaigning journalist Glen Greenwald is one of the most important figures of our times. You can agree or disagree with his views, of course. And you can certainly argue that he is not right about everything, and has made some mistakes in his reporting, whilst supporting his overall purpose of limiting the ability of the state to spy on the individual.

But he is someone who is standing up for our freedom - and I find it hard to see how you can think that is a bad thing.

And yet the right-wing, public-school pundit Jerermy Duns clearly does.

He had devoted a huge amount of his time over the past few months, both on his own blog and on Twitter to attacking Greenwald. There is one example here... There are many other examples on Duns's blog, and on his Twitter feed.

For a while I was puzzled by why Duns was so aggressive towards Greenwald, and was so determined to discredit him.

And then I started to work it out. It is because he is gay?

Now, Duns will I believe now threaten legal action against me, as he frequently does. So I want to make it quite clear that this is only a theory - I have no definitive evidence that Duns hates gays. And like anyone Duns is innocent until proven otherwise. But there several facts that point clearly in this direction, and it is important that these are made public.

First, Greenwald is not the only example of Duns attacking a prominent gay journalist. A few years back, Duns devoted a huge amount of energy to attacking the gay, left-wing journalist Johan Hari. You can read examples of his attacks here and here. And Hari is openly gay. There are very few senior gay journalists working in the British media (the only other one I can think of is Matthew Parris - but Duns probably likes him because he is a Tory). So he is not just attacking one but a series of gay journalists.

Second, Duns was educated at one of the major British public schools - Winchester (see this link). It is well documented that public schools are rabidly anti-gay, perhaps because the risk of homosexual relationships is so high in a mostly male environment. So Duns may well have picked up these attitudes at schol.

Thirdly, Duns is the main supporter of the literary merit of the work of Ian Fleming. Fleming was not just a sexist writer - he was anti-gay as well. Take this except from Goldfinger -

Bond said firmly, ‘Lock that door, Pussy, take off that sweater and come into bed. You’ll catch cold.’
She did as she was told, like an obedient child. She lay in the crook of Bond’s arm and looked up at him. She said, not in a gangster’s voice, or a Lesbian’s, but in a girl’s voice, ‘Will you write to me in Sing Sing?’
Bond looked down into the deep blue-violet eyes that were no longer hard, imperious. He bent and kissed them lightly. He said, ‘They told me you only liked women.’
She said, ‘I never met a man before.’
That is only one example. There are many, many instances of Fleming's homophobia. He was a writer who hated gays - and yet Duns insists on promoting him as one of the greatest writers of the last fifty years.

So that makes three pieces of evidence. Duns frequently attacks prominent gays, he came from a traditionally gay-hating background, and his main professional occupation is praising the work of an openly homophobic writer. On my analysis, that makes Duns anti-gay.

It may be hard for men like Duns to accept, but being gay is not a deviation - it is an allowable choice. Gays are victimised, and subject to assaults just like women. And this is because men like Duns promote an agenda in which it is considered acceptable to attack gays.

Public school bullies like Duns represent everything that is wrong with our society. He has to be stopped - and can be if we all work together we can unite around an agenda that denies any space to men of his sort.

Friday, 20 December 2013

How Jeremy Duns Smears People

I have blogged here before about how the public school Twitter bully Jeremy Duns smears people.

But the threats he has made against this blogs are a perfect illustration of how he operates.

In August, Duns put up a post threatening legal action against this blog - you can read it here.

He also clearly implies that I am responsible for other sites that scrutinise his work, although without producing a shred of evidence that I have done so.

As well as the usual abuse he heeps on a mere woman who has the temerity to question him - 'pathethic' and 'vile' are two of the words he uses, living up to his usual standards of civilised debate - he specifically states that he is planning legal action.

He has done this before - for example on September 21, 2012, he wrote this as a comment -

"IlkleyChess (Gerard Killoran) is now explaining to me via email why this wasn't him. I'm all ears.

It makes little difference. If this blog is still here tomorrow morning I will take legal steps to find the IP of this and the other blog, and sue whoever is behind it for libel. If 'Maria James' *isn't* Gerard - and I find that extraordinarily hard to believe - he or she has of course not just defamed me but also brought Steve Roach into this against his will, and now apparently Mr Killoran. So if it isn't either of them, they may also want to sue.

Either way, I'll sue if it's still here tomorrow. Try me" - the link is here. 

On 15th September, 20112, he wrote this -

I do not know the IP address of this blog and other similarly names one - but Google will. If this blog is still here on Monday morning I will initiate the legal process to obtain the IP address of this blog on grounds of malicious falsehood and defamation. Whoever the IP belongs to - ie you - I will then sue." - the link is here.

So it is quite clear that Duns is accusing me of malicious falsehood, libel and defamation.

That is a very serious allegation to make. Malicious falsehood, for example, is  a criminal offence. So Duns is accusing me of a crime.

But when I called him out on it, and said I would correct any errors of fact I had made, he fell strangely silent.

Duns describes himself as journalist. In fact, the evidence for this is hard to find. According to this site, the last original article he wrote was in May 2011, and the one before that was in May 2009. I am not sure if writing two articles in four years allows you to describe yourself as a journalist. But anyway, if he is a qualified journalist the he must surely be familiar with the libel laws. These state very clearly that both truth and fair comment are defences against libel.

I challeneged Duns quite clearly to state any mistaken facts in my blogs, and said I would correct them. He could not do so, because it is all true. Unlike Duns, I check things carefully before writing them.

So why is he accusing me of libel when he has no case?

Why is he bullying and throwing around accusations he is not able to back back up?

Because all he is interested in doing is smearing people.

Time and time again, he makes aggressive allegations against people, without a shred of evidence to support them  - and this is just one more example. 

More and more people are starting to understand that public school bullies like Duns represent everything that is wrong with our society. If we stand up to him, we can change the world for the better.

Friday, 6 December 2013

Who Is Jeremy Duns?

Public school Jeremy Duns has responded to my last post.

He says his name was changed by deed poll after his mother re-married.

But this just raises more important questions?

Who was his birth father? 

Why the unusual arrangement of changing someone's name by deed poll? Was his mother trying to hide something.

People have a right to know. 

Duns sets himself up as a public figure.

He attacks writers who don't use their real names - look at his attacks on RJ Ellory.

But that means he also needs to answer questions about who he really is and what his agenda might be.

Wednesday, 20 November 2013

An Extraordinary Allegation Against Jeremy Duns

On his Wikipedia page, and in an article in the FT, Jeremy Duns states quite clearly that he was born in Manchester.

But on Twitter, @StephenHildon has looked him up and found that no one of that name was born in Manchester or elsewhere up until 2006.

  19 Nov
according to an FT article he was born in Manchester but there has never been

So what is going on?

Has Duns lied about where he was born, and if so why?

Of course, it might be that he was adopted. Or that Duns is a nom de plum.

But again, why has he not said so?

Duns holds other people to account. But why is he not being honest himself?

These are important questions and Duns needs to answer them.

Friday, 25 October 2013

Jeremy Duns - Public School Twitter Bully

A lot has been written about bullying on Twitter. Most attention has focussed on teenagers. But I want to highlight the public school bullying exemplified by the writer Jeremy Duns, who this week launched his second campaign against the obscure blogger Gerard Killoran.

I have made it quite clear in several posts that this blog is written in my own name. But Duns continues to insist that it is written by a man. At various points he has suggested it is written by the thriller writer Stephen Leather. One of his followers (or was it Duns himself?) even set up a blog to push that line. You can read it here. Leave aside the oddness of setting up an anonymous blog to complain about an anonymous blog - who knows how these people think - it provided no evidence to support that conclusion.

Duns's main candidate is Killoran. He launched a furious attack on him last year, which you can read about here. It was an attack of extraordinary verbal violence, of a sort that might cause real harm to an elderly man. But worst of all, it was untrue, as Duns later admitted.

Most people might be humbled by that. But not public school Jeremy, who is always right about everything because he went to a posh school, and is happy to trample on people because he is upper class.

On Oct 21, Duns believed he had found evidence that Killoran was in fact the author of this blog. It seems a 'trap' had been laid by one of his gang, a writer called Luca Veste (who has a book out soon featuring - you guessed - a serial killer who 'experiments' on his women victims). I cannot believe that any man in the 21st century would talk about 'trapping' a women - but Duns thinks it is fine. Based on this 'very clever trap', Duns then launched his usual barrage of tweets against Killoran. You can read them on his Twitter feed - here .

Except, whoops! It turned out this boys club was not as clever as it thought. By the end of the day, Duns had to admit he had got it wrong, and owed Killoran an apology.

Right. Hearty apologies to for saying they were , who will now continue to smear me for the next decade or two.

What this shows us is two things.

The first is that Duns is a bully who uses Twitter to smear and attack people, but who does not have any concern at all with getting his facts right.

The second is his sexism. He clearly cannot believe that this blog is written by a woman, because they belong in the bedroom or the kitchen. They cannot be allowed to have strong opinions, or to stand up to public schoolboys like Duns. If they do, he has to deny that they are women.

Duns represents everything that is going wrong with the world. That is why we have to stand up to him and must never give up the fight.

Wednesday, 16 October 2013

More Shocking Allegations Against Jeremy Duns

Selena Kitt has written a devastating critique of Jeremy Duns and his way of operating on her blog.

You can read it in full here.

It is hard for me to comment in detail on her allegations in specifics.

But the bullying, the arrogance, the trashing of people's work, the disregard of the truth, and the threatening behaviour, are all precisely what I have been writing about on this blog.

I am afraid it is typical of public-school bullies like Duns.

The issue now is to band together to stop him.

Friday, 11 October 2013

A Shocking Allegation Against Duns

A shocking set of allegations have been made about Jeremy Duns. You can read them here.

Obviously I do not know if they are true or not - and unlike Duns I think everyone is entitled to a fair hearing.

But the bullying, sexism and threatening stance is in line with the issues I have raised on this blog.

Thursday, 5 September 2013

A Reply To Jeremy Duns's Smears....

This blog is attracting a growing following, for which I am grateful. Lots of people are disturbed by the influence of the right-wing, public school writer Jeremy Duns, and are looking for a forum in which he can be exposed.

Duns is clearly getting worried about the impact on his reputation, and has smeared me on his own blog, as well as threatening legal action. You can read the attack here...

The nub of his complaint is this -

"The allegations include that I am a bully; a misogynist; a ‘rape-denier’; an ‘abuse-denier’; a plagiarist; use sockpuppet identities (!); and have lied about my professional credentials. Every single one of their claims is completely and utterly untrue."

My response is as follows.

First, Duns seems very concerned that I am someone else. He keeps accusing various different people of being me - and so do some of his associates (see this strange blog, for example).

Actually, I have stated my name quite clearly. It is Maria Emily James. What more does Duns want? That I should post my full address and ID details? I have been threatened with physical violence and legal action for setting up this blog.  Does Duns really believe a woman has to post her address online before she is allowed to raise a feminist issue, and so lay herself open to physical attack.Women get raped for being feminists - the fact that Duns does not understand this tells you what kind of man he is.

But anyway, why does it matter? I have set out a number of issues I have with Duns's work, clearly and reasonably. Why not just answer the issues - rather than attack me personally? Surely an argument is either valid or invalid - it does not matter who is making it?

Secondly, why the legal threats? I have looked at Dun's work, and I find his right-wing, sexist views horrifying. I use this blog to disagree with them, and to build a case against them. But he is of course perfectly free to express them. And he is perfectly free to attack me as well. It is called free speech.

In fact, Duns seems to think that any disagreement with his world view is libellous. It isn't. I have laid out my views and the supporting evidence for them.

For example, I believe that Duns's work is sexist. My evidence is his lavish praise for the James Bond books, some of the most sexist ever written ('the sweet tang of rape' is a line from one of his favourites). You can read the blog post here... Now it is perfectly acceptable for Duns to disagree with me - and to maintain that you can be a feminist, as he claims to be, and also lavish praise on a horrifyingly sexist book. But in what sense my claim libellous? Is there any disagreement with his views that Duns would not threaten with a libel action?

He needs to answer these questions. They are important.

Thirdly, what are the inaccuracies? I accept that Duns does not agree with my views. That's called a debate. But where have I made a factual error? If I have done so, I will correct it. But I haven't. In the example above, I laid out Duns's praise for Casino Royale, and then the lines from the book that are objectionable. I concluded that Duns was/is a misogynist. Again, I understand that he does not accept that conclusion. But are the quotes of his not correct? Are the quotes from Casino Royale inaccurate? No. So why am I not allowed to analyse them without threats of legal action?

The same thing happened with my post on David Hewson. I quoted text from his book of violence against women, and explained why I found it objectionable. Hewson replied by calling me a 'liar'. But the quotes were completely accurate, and anyone can look them up online. So what were the lies?

Duns and his gang use the same tactics all the time. Anyone who questions them is accused of lying. But the truth is that they simply cannot accept that a mere women dares to challenge a group of important right wing men - because women belong in the bedroom or the kitchen.

In my view men like Duns with their smug, right-wing public school views represent all that is wrong with our society. I started  this blog because of his sinister bullying of a writer called Steve Roach, but since then his work has disturbed me even more - and many others as well. Now he has resorted to smears and legal threats....because he can't answer the case against him.

Wednesday, 14 August 2013

Is Jeremy Duns A Public School Twitter Bully?

There has been a lot in the news recently about internet bullying, following the tragic suicide of Hannah Smith who was sent abusive messages on social networking sites.

There is an impression that internet bullying is restricted to teenagers. But unfortunately it is far more widespread than that. Across all walks of life, decent people are being tormented by small groups of aggressive individuals.

Jeremy Duns is a prime example.

There is a long tradition of bullying at Britain's public schools, as anyone who has read Tom Brown's Schooldays will know. David Cameron is a good example - the Eton-educated PM will constantly pick on people less privileged than himself. The public school, right-wing Duns does the same, exploiting the web to attack people as perhaps he did at his expensive boarding school.

I will give two examples.

Last year, Duns dragged an author called Steve Roach into the limelight. First Duns alleged that Roach did not exist and was simply an false identity used by another writer called Stephen Leather. Duns posted this allegations on Twitter as fact. As I am sure most people will accept, this was upsetting for Steve Roach and.he contacted Duns to set the record straight.

Most normal people would be ashamed of themselves by this point.

But Duns only reluctantly conceded Roach existed. He then insisted that Roach had been 'bullied' by Leather. Again, Roach insisted this was not the case, as he told Duns over a telephone conversation, which Duns recorded without informing Roach.

Duns has constantly made false accusations against Roach.

Roach has publicly made this clear, in a comment on Duns's blog (here). 

'You were publicly Tweeting that I was Stephen Leather – patently untrue but that didn't stop you disseminating this false information into the public domain," writes Roach.

Indeed, Duns eventually accepted that he had done something morally wrong. 'As for accusing you of being Stephen Leather, I apologized to you on the phone and on Twitter for this. I apologize again: it's becoming clear that it's a horrible thing to be accused of,' he wrote on Aug 25th, 2012.

But he carried on accusing Roach of being bullied by Leather, even when Roach told him this was not true.

So we should be clear about this. Duns has bullied Roach in a way that he accepts himself was wrong.

The second case is Nate Thayer.

Thayer is a widely respected American reporter.

Earlier this year, Duns started accusing Thayer of plagiarism over an article he wrote. This is a career threatening accusation to be made against a reporter. You can read about the accusation in NY magazine here. 

The accusations were investigated by the Columbia Journalism Review, and found to be untrue -
'That doesn’t make him a plagiarist, and Duns was wrong to accuse him without giving him time to explain himself', it concluded ( the link is here). Mark Ziegler, the writer who Duns said Thayer had stolen from, said himself he did not think it was true (source here).

So just as Duns insists that Roach has been bullied when he says he hasn't been, he insists that Ziegler has been plagiarised when Ziegler says he has not. 
It has done a lot of damage, I believe, to Thayer's career. According to his blog, he is now reduced to writing corporate newsletters for Chinese companies that do not pay him - link here

My argument is that this is classic public school bullying of a type perfected by the English upper-classes.  Duns picks on a victim, and then hurls a series of accusations against the person, with no interest in whether they are true or not. 

Duns is being allowed to get away with terrible bullying on Twitter. Even worse, he is taking the culture of the public school and making it normal on sites such as Twitter. It is time he was stopped.

Thursday, 4 July 2013

Ian Rankin's Sneering Sexism

A couple of times now I have blogged about David Hewson's books, and the graphic and to me disgusting portrayals of violence against women in them.

Hewson is not brave enough to respond.

Ian Rankin however posted a sneering tweet saying he read the post and laughed. You can read it on his twitter feed here.

Now, it is of course legitimate to disagree with me. Maybe violence against women in books does not encourage violence against women in real life? Maybe violence against women doesn't matter?

But it is surely a serious subject for debate?

Men like Rankin think it is just funny, while Hewson accuses me of lying.

This is typical of the Duns gang of right-wing sexist crime and thriller writers.They insult anyone who question their male-centric view of the world.

When I looked it up, it turns out that Rankin has a long record of abusing women who raise the issue of violence against them. He insulted women crime writers, saying that the most graphic depictions of violence were written by women, and 'they were mostly lesbians as well'. The details are here.

So, to Rankin, any women who complains about violence is a 'lesbian'. The implication is clear. 'Normal' women should presumably enjoy being beaten by men.

Also reviews have drawn attention to the sexism inherent in his books, particularly his main detective. 

I believe that violence against women is an important issue. The constant portrayal of horrific crimes as a form of light entertainment legitimizes them.

Writers like Duns, Hewson and Rankin encourage a culture in which that violence is seen as acceptable.

Tuesday, 4 June 2013

Jeremy Duns & Promoting Sexism

I have posted here before about the sexism of the right-wing, public school British thriller writer Jeremy Duns.

In particular I drew attention to Dun's support of the Ian Fleming book Casino Royale. In my view, this is one of the most nastily sexist books published - it includes, for example, the line 'the sweet tang of rape'.

On Twitter, Duns has made an attempt to defend himself.

You can read the comments here.

But he is completely wrong - and here is why that is true.

"Dozens of famous books and films in the 20th century were sexist and/or racist. We can enjoy them despite this," he states.

Duns defense is that Casino Royale is typical of its time.

But if he had bothered to read my post he would see that I already dealt with that point.

I argued that in fact Casino Royale was not typical of its time, in the way that Agatha Christie's racism was of hers.

How many writers in the 1950s used a phrase like 'the sweet tang of rape'?

The 1950s was a time when in some ways women were more repressed. But there was not the violent exploitation of their sexuality that we see today.

I asked Duns to produced 5 mainstream books from the 1950s that celebrate rape in the same way. He has not done so. Instead, he just sneers, and makes personal attacks.

In my view Casino Royale is a disgusting book that changed the world for the worse.

So when Duns claims it is one of the greatest books ever written, he is celebrating a work of extreme violence against women - and one that created the pornographic culture of today.

Around the world, women are raped and beaten every day because of a culture that sees violence against women as acceptable. We have to fight that on every front - and this is as important as any.

Wednesday, 29 May 2013

David Hewson's Sexism & Bullying

A few weeks ago, I used this blog to highlight the sexism of the work of a British crime writer called David Hewson. He is by no means the only example of how the crime genre now routinely uses disgusting and graphic depictions of violence against women to sell books - but in my view he is one of the most prominent.

I believe that Hewson's response was revealing of the mindset of this small group of right-wing writers, of which Jeremy Duns seems to be the leader.

On April 7th, Hewson tweeted: "Just once for the record... you are a cowardly web troll hiding behind anonymity in a pathetic attempt to spread lies. Grow up..." The link is here. 

Let us remember that this is a man who makes his living by writing violent scenes of violence against women.

So how does he respond when a woman questions him on it?

With yet more violence.

Why am I a cowardly web troll? What is cowardly about pointing out something that you believe is wrong? Hewson may not like that I disagree with his work, but what is cowardly about making the point?

I am not hiding anywhere. I use my name for this blog, and it is completely open to comments.

What are the lies?

Notice that Hewson makes no attempt to argue or to set the record straight. My blog post on his work quoted from his published work. Is he not the author of 'The Killing I & II? So what lies are these?

What we see here is a very similar reaction to Jeremy Duns when I questioned his tactic of taping phone calls without permission. I am subjected to a campaign of personal abuse and intimidation.

But I repeat my point. Hewson's work uses extreme violence against women. Every day women are abused and raped and sometimes killed. I suspect there is a connection between that and the way popular culture glorifies violence against women. I can't prove that, but I think it is worth discussing.

I don't think that making the argument is cowardly. And I think Hewson should grow up and answer the questions in a civil and reasonable way.

I see Hewson has a new book out soon. Details here...

It feature a 'kidnapped daughter'. It had to be a daughter didn't it? It would never occur to a man like Hewson to have a kidnapped son....

Wednesday, 27 February 2013

Is Duns A Woman-Hater - More Shocking Evidence

On this blog, the woman-hating of the right-wing public school author Jeremy Duns has been exposed already.

But Duns can't help himself - he despises women so much he keeps going.

Earlier this month, Dr Brooke Magnanti wrote a harmless articles for the Daily Telegraph about Valentine's Day. It was not great but not terrible.

That same day Duns launched a vicious attach on Brooke on Twitter accusing her of stealing the article from Wikipedia. There are some examples here -

Here is the article.

And here is the Wikipedia entry she is meant to have taken it from -'s_Day

Now clearly some of the facts are the same. If you write about Valentine's Day you are going to cover some of the main ground as the entries in Wikipedia. But Brooke used her own words and her own analysis of the traditions she was writing about.

So why did Duns decide to heap abuse on her?

It is because Brooke is a strong, independent woman, who is not afraid to speak out on behalf of other women.

She has written courageously about how women can behave s they want to without being attacked for it -

Wheres Duns likes to name his best writer of all time a man who can use a phrase like the 'sweet tang of rape'.

Brooke is everything that Duns had his gang of right-wing, public school pundits hate - a woman in control of her own life who works for other women.

There is culture of violence against women in our society that causes huge damage. Men like Duns encourage and celebrate it. That is why they have to be stopped.

Thursday, 7 February 2013

The Duns Gang of Women-Haters - The Case of David Hewson

Over the last few months, I have been blogging here about the work of the right-wing, public school thriller writer Jeremy Duns. His work is often a celebration and glorification of rape and violence against women, creating a culture in which men find it acceptable to beat, rape and sometimes kill women.

I have been routinely abused and threatened by Duns and his supporters for doing that.

Duns has a little circle of rape-deniers and abuse-deniers who are his enthusiastic supporters.

Now that I have looked into their work I find that they  as well appear proud to hate women, and think that extreme and graphic depictions of violence against them is completely acceptable.

I will start with the case of David Hewson.

Hewson is the author of several thrillers, but I will start with his most recent book, 'The Killling II'. This is a spin-off from the TV series - we must assume that Hewson does not do original ideas.

In the very first chapter, the detective in the story discovers a body. Inevitably, it is a woman. Here is how Hewson describes it. "A woman was tied to the centre pole,  hands behind her back, bound with heavy rope round her torso. Blonde hair soaked with rain and worse, head down, chin on chest, crouched awkwardly on her knees. A gaping wound at her neck like a sick second smile.She wore a blue dressing gown slashed in places all the way to the waist, flesh and skin visible where the frenzied blade stabbed at her. Her face was bruised and dirty. Blood poured from her nostrils, had dried down the side of her mouth, like make-up on a tragic clown."

Note the use of the description of a 'gaping wound' that is 'like a second sick smile'. I can assume that Hewson is trying to compare it to a vagina. Sick.

Just a one off? Before that Hewson published 'The Killing I'. That book opens with the murder of a young woman called Nana Birk Larsen. Again, Hewson goes into loving, detailed descriptions of the killing because, we can assume, that is what he enjoys writing about.

Now, I have no doubt that Hewson and Duns and all the other rape-deniers in their little public school club will immediately point out that the main detective in both The Killing books, as in the TV series, is a woman, and therefore that they should not be accused of sexism.

This is at all not true.

The use of a female protagonist is just a fig-leave that disguises but does not excuse the women-hating that underpins these books.

Why is it that the victims have to be women?

In fact, serial killers are very rare in Denmark where the story is set. According to this source Denmark has only two known serial killers - very low by global standards.

So Hewson is not in any way attempting an honest or accurate description of police work in that country. He is deliberating creating the kind of case that does not really exist there. Why is he doing that? And what does it say about his view of women and how they should be treated.

Some people in the crime writing community have had enough of the way its writers have started celebrating violence against women as a cheap way of selling books. For example, the reviewer Jesscia Mann stopped reviewing books because she was disgusted with the way they used graphic descriptions of horrific crimes against women - you can read about her brave stand here. 

But writers like Hewson have decided to ignore that.

Clearly, the only type of story they can think of is one that involves killing women - even if it is very far from reality.

That is because they think that women have become too powerful, and have to be put in their place - by men of course.

It is typical of the attitude

Raping women is 'sweet', according to the writer that Duns thinks is the best ever.

Rape is the stuff of male fantasies. It is only a small step from raping them to killing the. After all, that is the best way to make sure the 'bitches' (another favourite word of the Duns circle of rape-deniers) don't talk.

And killing them is a good subject for a book - hey it will sell some copies.

It is disgusting, and it has to be stopped.