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.


  1. Really?

    This is pretty common, in fact, and the reasons are obvious if you'd stopped to think about it for more than a minute before deciding that somehow it involved a major conspiracy. My mother remarried my stepfather when I was very young, and they had another child. So I had a different name from the three other members of my family legally. That wasn't practical in daily life for many reasons, so I took my stepfather's surname, or rather I had it given it to me as I was too young to be aware of such things. When I was a bit older, my parents (my mother and stepfather, who I regard as my father) formalised it by changing my surname via deed poll - they had to have my father's permission to do it. So my legal name - my real name - is Jeremy Duns. No agenda, nothing to hide, and this is the case with thousands and thousands of people. Look it up if you don't believe me. (Alternatively, carry on wasting your life by trying to find increasingly more desperate attempts to smear me.)

    Oh, and I don't 'attack writers who don't use their real names' - that's daft. A sockpuppet is not simply a pseudonym, or an alias, or a legally taken name because of a divorce. A sockpuppet is when someone uses a different name because they have a conflict of interest. In RJ Ellory's case, he wrote positive reviews of his own work and a few negative reviews of other writers' work, *pretending to be other people*. This happened over a year ago now, and Ellory apologized, and moved on. He also privately thanked me for the way I handled the situation. The open letter condemning this practice was, incidentally, signed by several authors who write under names tha aren't the ones they were born with, for example Lee Child. Only a fool would fail to grasp the difference between that and sockpuppeting.

    You are also a sockpuppet, of course, as there is no human rights lawyer called Maria James, or Emily James for that matter, and no human rights lawyer would behave in the way you are doing. I note, though, that this blogpost has appeared within an hour of me criticising Stephen Leather for racism on Twitter. More on Leather's racism, sexism, sockpuppeting, bullying and sociopathic behaviour can be found here:

  2. I find it a little unsettling that Duns feels able to publicise details of what he admits was a private conversation.

    He says that RJ Ellory privately thanked him for outing him on Twitter. Even if that is true, shouldn't that conversation have remained private?

    I wonder too if Duns was recording the conversation with Mr Ellory? Duns does have form for illegally recording conversation, of course.

  3. This comment has been removed by the author.

  4. Oh hello, new random pseudonymous identity. Anyone who feels that my comment above is more disturbing than this website probably has an agenda, I think it's fair to say. I can think of several more unsettling things than my revealing that RJ Ellory thanked me for the way I handled that situation over a year ago.

    I've never spoken to Mr Ellory about this so couldn't have recorded our 'conversation'. We communicated via Facebook messages, in fact. And, as I'm sure you know, there was nothing illegal about my recording (but not publishing) my conversation with Steve Roach. I've now explained that oh, about a zillion times.

    Here are some significantly more 'unsettling' matters:

    Are you 'unsettled' by any of them?