A few weeks ago, I raised some questions about how Jeremy Duns finances himself, and who might be paying him.
Shortly afterwards he left Twitter and disappeared.
I suppose he does not like people raising that issue and decided to run away.
Like all bullies, Duns is a coward.
Wednesday, 7 October 2015
Friday, 26 June 2015
Why Is Jeremy Duns Lying About His Finances...
A few months ago I raised the issue on this blog of whether Jeremy Duns was entitled to call himself a journalist, given there is very little evidence that he ever publishes any journalism, and has never worked on the staff of a major news organisation.
In response, Duns stated clearly that he had set up a company to do journalism.
To me, this is not a convincing reply. Anyone can set up a company. I can set up an automobile company. That does not make me BMW. The question is whether the company has any work. So I challenged Duns repeatedly to give the name of this company.
But Duns has refused to do so.
This is very odd. And it set me to thinking about his reasons.
I do not believe there is a privacy issue at stake. All company records are publicly available. If I had the name I could look it up. And in point of fact Duns has in the past published details of writers he is attacking taken from company records. So it is not as if Duns can believe that it is a private matter.
So why won't he name this company?
I believe there are three possible reasons.
The first is that Duns is lying. It may in fact be the case that Duns just said that he set up a company because he thought it made him seem important. There are lots of dreamers out there who claim they have done this or that so they seem bigger people than they really are. Nearly all of them are men and women will have met plenty of them. They are usually suffering from a painful sense of inadequacy. If so, that would be in keeping with the bullying that is also the stock in trade of Duns. Fantasists are usually bullies as well.
The second is that Duns is ashamed. He may have set up the company, expecting it to deal with the income from his writing. But now there is not very much of that. I cannot find any evidence of his published journalism, and as other bloggers have pointed out, his books sell in pathetic numbers so it is not possible to believe that he makes any real money out of them. If I had the name of the company, I might find that it had an income of only a few hundred pounds a year, at best. Duns poses as a professional writer, but if he cannot earn any money, he would be revealed as a failure. This may explain why he will not reveal the name of the company.
The third possibility is more troubling. There have been suggestions on Twitter that Duns is employed or paid for by other groups. I cannot comment on that directly. This blog only deals in hard evidence. Unlike Duns I do not fire out allegations that cannot be proved. But if Duns were working for someone, then some large payments would appear in his company accounts. So it may be that he keeps it secret to protect his real paymasters.
Whatever the reason, Duns can clear this matter up simply by revealing the name of his company.
His refusal to do so, and his demand that his own work be free of all scrutiny, despite the abuse he levels at other people, shows us what kind of man this is - a bully, who hides his own secrets.
In response, Duns stated clearly that he had set up a company to do journalism.
To me, this is not a convincing reply. Anyone can set up a company. I can set up an automobile company. That does not make me BMW. The question is whether the company has any work. So I challenged Duns repeatedly to give the name of this company.
But Duns has refused to do so.
This is very odd. And it set me to thinking about his reasons.
I do not believe there is a privacy issue at stake. All company records are publicly available. If I had the name I could look it up. And in point of fact Duns has in the past published details of writers he is attacking taken from company records. So it is not as if Duns can believe that it is a private matter.
So why won't he name this company?
I believe there are three possible reasons.
The first is that Duns is lying. It may in fact be the case that Duns just said that he set up a company because he thought it made him seem important. There are lots of dreamers out there who claim they have done this or that so they seem bigger people than they really are. Nearly all of them are men and women will have met plenty of them. They are usually suffering from a painful sense of inadequacy. If so, that would be in keeping with the bullying that is also the stock in trade of Duns. Fantasists are usually bullies as well.
The second is that Duns is ashamed. He may have set up the company, expecting it to deal with the income from his writing. But now there is not very much of that. I cannot find any evidence of his published journalism, and as other bloggers have pointed out, his books sell in pathetic numbers so it is not possible to believe that he makes any real money out of them. If I had the name of the company, I might find that it had an income of only a few hundred pounds a year, at best. Duns poses as a professional writer, but if he cannot earn any money, he would be revealed as a failure. This may explain why he will not reveal the name of the company.
The third possibility is more troubling. There have been suggestions on Twitter that Duns is employed or paid for by other groups. I cannot comment on that directly. This blog only deals in hard evidence. Unlike Duns I do not fire out allegations that cannot be proved. But if Duns were working for someone, then some large payments would appear in his company accounts. So it may be that he keeps it secret to protect his real paymasters.
Whatever the reason, Duns can clear this matter up simply by revealing the name of his company.
His refusal to do so, and his demand that his own work be free of all scrutiny, despite the abuse he levels at other people, shows us what kind of man this is - a bully, who hides his own secrets.
Wednesday, 12 November 2014
What Is Jeremy Duns Hiding?
In September, I started a debate on this blog about whether Jeremy Duns was entitled to describe himself as a journalist when there is so little evidence of him having done any paid reporting.
One response from Duns was to point out that he had a company that did journalism.
I challenged Duns to publish its accounts, or at least to supply the name of this company. Anyone can set up a company - the point is, does it have any work.
Duns has so far not been willing to do so.
He has ducked and avoided a straight, simple and fair question.
This is suspicious.
What would the accounts of this company show?
What income does Duns have and who is paying him?
Why is he so determined to keep it secret?
Duns needs to answer these questions.
Maybe he will dismiss the questions because they are asked by a women - and Duns does not think women should be allowed to speak.
But more and more people are starting to stand up to the bullying that Duns is a specialist operator in.
If we are strong together we can defeat him.
One response from Duns was to point out that he had a company that did journalism.
I challenged Duns to publish its accounts, or at least to supply the name of this company. Anyone can set up a company - the point is, does it have any work.
Duns has so far not been willing to do so.
He has ducked and avoided a straight, simple and fair question.
This is suspicious.
What would the accounts of this company show?
What income does Duns have and who is paying him?
Why is he so determined to keep it secret?
Duns needs to answer these questions.
Maybe he will dismiss the questions because they are asked by a women - and Duns does not think women should be allowed to speak.
But more and more people are starting to stand up to the bullying that Duns is a specialist operator in.
If we are strong together we can defeat him.
Friday, 31 October 2014
Jeremy Duns Is A Women-Hater
I have raised the issue before of whether Jeremy Duns is a women hater.
After I started this blog, I was called a bitch, and threatened with rape as a punishment.
And it is also the case that he repeatedly praises the work of Ian Fleming, a writer who often wrote about women in violent and sadistic terms.
But now it is my view that this hatred of women - all women - has reached a new and more violent extreme.
Jeremy Duns has launched a vile and despicable attack on the writer and former sex worker Brooke Magnanti. He repeated accusations that she had used a sock-puppet account on Twitter - although there was no clear evidence she had - and did so in a bullying way that amounted to serious and intentional sexual intimidation. Then he tried to prove that she had not in fact worked as a sex worker, including trawling review sites of prostitutes, and demanding that she provided photo-graphic evidence of herself engaged in sex work. Unbelivable but all true. He then raked up old accusations that he had made that she copied an article she wrote for the Daily Telgraph from Wikipedia, when it was clear she had just used it as source material.
It is clear that Duns had a nasty obsessive side to his character, and this behavior amounted to online stalking of Magnanti.You can see some of his bullying tweets here.
Many people on Twitter argued that this amounted to whore-ophobia, and I think this is true.
In fact, sex workers are women who step outside of the confines of male-dominated society and take control of their own lives. Instead of selling sex within marriage, they sell it openly and brazenly, and get a far better deal than simpering Barbie-doll women.
As Magnanti argued, to a man such as Duns, it is taken as given that all whores are liars - because they are women who do not allow themselves to be controlled by men such as himself.
That is why he has to attack them.
It is men such as Duns who create a world in which is okay to attack women, and to use violence to control them.
It is disgusting - and we need to be strong together to resist him.
After I started this blog, I was called a bitch, and threatened with rape as a punishment.
And it is also the case that he repeatedly praises the work of Ian Fleming, a writer who often wrote about women in violent and sadistic terms.
But now it is my view that this hatred of women - all women - has reached a new and more violent extreme.
Jeremy Duns has launched a vile and despicable attack on the writer and former sex worker Brooke Magnanti. He repeated accusations that she had used a sock-puppet account on Twitter - although there was no clear evidence she had - and did so in a bullying way that amounted to serious and intentional sexual intimidation. Then he tried to prove that she had not in fact worked as a sex worker, including trawling review sites of prostitutes, and demanding that she provided photo-graphic evidence of herself engaged in sex work. Unbelivable but all true. He then raked up old accusations that he had made that she copied an article she wrote for the Daily Telgraph from Wikipedia, when it was clear she had just used it as source material.
It is clear that Duns had a nasty obsessive side to his character, and this behavior amounted to online stalking of Magnanti.You can see some of his bullying tweets here.
Many people on Twitter argued that this amounted to whore-ophobia, and I think this is true.
In fact, sex workers are women who step outside of the confines of male-dominated society and take control of their own lives. Instead of selling sex within marriage, they sell it openly and brazenly, and get a far better deal than simpering Barbie-doll women.
As Magnanti argued, to a man such as Duns, it is taken as given that all whores are liars - because they are women who do not allow themselves to be controlled by men such as himself.
That is why he has to attack them.
It is men such as Duns who create a world in which is okay to attack women, and to use violence to control them.
It is disgusting - and we need to be strong together to resist him.
Thursday, 25 September 2014
Jeremy Duns Is Still Lying To You
Jeremy Duns has been attacking the writer Johann Hari again - you can see the latest example here and here.
His complaints about Hari I will leave to other people to judge.
But the issue for this blog is whether it is actually Duns who is lying - about being a journalist.
He constantly claims to be a journalist, and he justifies his attacks on Hari and others as somehow policing his profession.
A few weeks ago, this blog raised the question of whether he could be justified in that description of himself as a journalist, when it is in fact the case that it is very hard to find any examples of his published work.
Duns replied on the comment section. He has never been restricted from commenting on this blog, although the reason it was set up was because he would not let me comment on his (Duns believes in free speech for himself, but not for others - or at least only for right-wing public schoolboys).
Asked for examples of his journalism, he pointed to this article.http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-21628728
And that it is.
Check the date, this appeared in March 2013. That is 18 months ago. In the last 3 and a half years, that is the only example of Duns's journalism that he can offer. I do not, I have to say, believe that it counts. That is a history radio broadcast, not journalism as most people would describe it. After all, journalism must have something to do with reporting or analysing the news - and that is not news.
But allow us to leave that point to one side.
If a person has done one piece of paid journalism in 3 and a half years, is is acceptable for them to describe themselves as a professional journalist?
No.
Duns also says he has a company that does journalism. It is not credible. In half an hour I can set up a company and describe it as an automobile manufacturer. Or oil explorer. Does that make me a car-maker or an oil-person? No, it does not. The question is whether this company has any work.His one does not. If this is not true, Duns is welcome to publish the accounts, or to provide details so that I can look up this so-called journalism company.
Lots of people work hard at journalism. It is not acceptable for someone to just come along and describe themselves as journalist.
It's a lie.
It is a far bigger lie than any one of Hari's.
And it is about time that he was exposed. Duns is entitled to argue against journalists if he wants to. But he is not entitled to call himself one.
Tuesday, 26 August 2014
Is Jeremy Duns Lying About Being A Journalist?
Jeremy Duns frequently refers to himself as a journalist, especially when he is attacking writers on Twitter, which is one of his main occupations.
He has also, as has been detailed on this blog, claimed legal rights accorded to journalists. For example, he claimed it was alright to tape private phone calls on the grounds that he was a journalist investigating a crime.
But is Duns really allowed to describe himself as a journalist?
It is a matter of record that Duns worked for a publication in Brussels that later closed down.
He has also written for a few British newspapers, largely on the subject of how much he loves the women-hating, racist fictional character James Bond.
I think there is a question over whether writing a few articles on a freelance basis allows someone to describe themselves as a 'journalist'. A number of footballers or politicians, for example, do the same, and they are not usually described that way.
But leave that aside for now.
In the last year, I can see no evidence that Duns has been employed as journalist at all.
If you look at he journalisted site, the last article he wrote was in April 2013, and even that was a re-print of an article from 2011.
There was another article in 2011 about Bond, and before that two in 2009.
And, well, that is it.
Now Duns has sometimes said that it is the case that he does a lot of journalism that is not on the web. I find that odd, since there are very few publications these days that are not online. But if that is true, then Duns is welcome to post evidence below.
My question for this post is, is a man who has not written a new article for three years still entitled to call himself a journalist?
I can understand the case that the criteria for being a journalist are not clear. Some belong to the National Union of Journalists, and some do not. There are also some that are employed by a company, and some that are freelancing for themselves. But it surely cannot be argued to be the case that anyone can just call themselves a journalist without the requirement to offer any evidence.
An ex-journalist is acceptable.
But if someone was once a taxi driver, are they allowed to describe themselves as a taxi driver when they no longer do so? Or a plumber? Or a web designer? The answer has to be not. So Duns is not allowed to call himself a journalist.
Duns is once again twisting the truth. It is time his fabrications were exposed.
He has also, as has been detailed on this blog, claimed legal rights accorded to journalists. For example, he claimed it was alright to tape private phone calls on the grounds that he was a journalist investigating a crime.
But is Duns really allowed to describe himself as a journalist?
It is a matter of record that Duns worked for a publication in Brussels that later closed down.
He has also written for a few British newspapers, largely on the subject of how much he loves the women-hating, racist fictional character James Bond.
I think there is a question over whether writing a few articles on a freelance basis allows someone to describe themselves as a 'journalist'. A number of footballers or politicians, for example, do the same, and they are not usually described that way.
But leave that aside for now.
In the last year, I can see no evidence that Duns has been employed as journalist at all.
If you look at he journalisted site, the last article he wrote was in April 2013, and even that was a re-print of an article from 2011.
There was another article in 2011 about Bond, and before that two in 2009.
And, well, that is it.
Now Duns has sometimes said that it is the case that he does a lot of journalism that is not on the web. I find that odd, since there are very few publications these days that are not online. But if that is true, then Duns is welcome to post evidence below.
My question for this post is, is a man who has not written a new article for three years still entitled to call himself a journalist?
I can understand the case that the criteria for being a journalist are not clear. Some belong to the National Union of Journalists, and some do not. There are also some that are employed by a company, and some that are freelancing for themselves. But it surely cannot be argued to be the case that anyone can just call themselves a journalist without the requirement to offer any evidence.
An ex-journalist is acceptable.
But if someone was once a taxi driver, are they allowed to describe themselves as a taxi driver when they no longer do so? Or a plumber? Or a web designer? The answer has to be not. So Duns is not allowed to call himself a journalist.
Duns is once again twisting the truth. It is time his fabrications were exposed.
Tuesday, 12 August 2014
Jeremy Duns Is Twisting The Truth
The Jeremy Duns - Journalist? website has done some excellent research on the way that Duns twists the truth to smear and attack people and frequently gets his facts wrong.
You can read the full post here.
This blog has consistently pointed out how Duns uses Twitter to mis-lead and destroy reputations, with no regard for accuracy.
But in my view there is a question over whether Duns can be described as a journalist, a subject I will blog on soon.
It is interesting to me that Duns has not responded to these allegations.
Is it because he is scared of the truth?
You can read the full post here.
This blog has consistently pointed out how Duns uses Twitter to mis-lead and destroy reputations, with no regard for accuracy.
But in my view there is a question over whether Duns can be described as a journalist, a subject I will blog on soon.
It is interesting to me that Duns has not responded to these allegations.
Is it because he is scared of the truth?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)