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?
Thursday, 3 July 2014
Is Jeremy Duns lying about his book?
The excellent Jeremy Duns - AKA The Witchfinder blog has a fascinating nugget of information about Duns. You can read it here.
It seems he has been boasting and implying his book won an award from the Daily Telegraph.
In fact, it did no such thing.
Given how much time Duns has devoted to attacking other writers for self-promotion, often without any evidence, this is a shocking allegation.
Duns needs to give a full and honest account of his actions, and if necessary an apology. And he needs to do so right away.
It seems he has been boasting and implying his book won an award from the Daily Telegraph.
In fact, it did no such thing.
Given how much time Duns has devoted to attacking other writers for self-promotion, often without any evidence, this is a shocking allegation.
Duns needs to give a full and honest account of his actions, and if necessary an apology. And he needs to do so right away.
Tuesday, 4 February 2014
Is Jeremy Duns A Moral Fascist
Nancy Lee has put forward a fascinating view on Jeremy Duns in the comments section of this blog, and I feel it deserves a wider audience, so I have decided to re-produce it as a separate post.
Here is what Nancy has to say:
Maria, I have to say first that I don’t believe that you are correct to describe Jeremy Duns as right-wing. The impression I have gleaned is that he is in fact a left-wing moral fascist, the type who seem to dominate the Social Media networks these days.
I am currently working on a PhD dissertation on the growth of internet bullying, specifically on Twitter. The name of Jeremy Duns kept cropping up during my research, and that is what led me to your blog.
I am fascinated by what motivates people to bully on the internet. It is a relatively new phenomena and one which I think needs to be explored so that we can first understand it and then put in place safeguards to minimise it.
In the Spectator magazine British journalist Toby Young wrote an excellent article on the left-wing Twitterati as he describes it - http://www.spectator.co.uk/life/status-anxiety/8780801/the-tyranny-of-the-twitterati/ There is no doubt in my mind that Jeremy Duns is a member of this group.
It was only when Jeremy Duns revealed here that he had in fact been adopted by his step-father and changed his name that I realised what has made him the man he is. Jeremy Duns was adopted by a rich, successful man who was able to buy him the best possible education. He went to Winchester which is one of the top private schools in England and then to Oxford, one of the country’s best universities. He benefited from a truly privileged education out of the reach of most people. (Incidentally there is some confusion about private and public schools. Jeremy Duns went to Winchester which in England is described as a public school. However it is a very expensive private school and only the wealthiest of students can attend. In the United States, a public school is a Government school open to anyone. That can cause confusion!)
As an aside, it is interesting how many of his Social Media friends went the same route. I have looked at many of the people that he corresponds with on Twitter and it is noticeable that many are from the north of England who went to top universities such as Oxford and Cambridge but then went on to have less than successful careers. Like Jeremy Duns they seem to take pleasure in attacking others from what they see as the moral high ground, the trademark of the left-wing moral fascist. The Twitterati as Toby Young calls them.
Great things were expected of Jeremy Duns when he was young, but recently he celebrated his fortieth birthday and it is clear that he has been far from successful. Despite applying for jobs on most major newspapers the only post he could get was on a small magazine in Belgium, where he failed to shine. He wrote a handful of mediocre spy novels that failed to sell. Despite the most privileged of educations, he is now basically a house-husband living with a more successful Swedish lady.
It is interesting that much of his writing is set around the time of the Cambridge Five, the notorious double agents who were recruited at university. I would be very surprised if Jeremy Duns had not applied to work for MI5 and MI6 (the English equivalent of the CIA) , and his wish to write spy books reflects the fact that he was rejected by them. In fact Jeremy Duns has been plagued by rejection his whole life – by his biological father, by newspapers, by the intelligence agencies, and by the book-buying public.
My feeling is that it is this rejection manifested itself in a jealousy that now motivates him and in fact it is what motivates most of the bullies who operate on Twitter. It is noticeable that Jeremy Duns tends to attack successful writers and journalists, those who have the careers that he wanted and was denied. A simple Google search will show up a long list of people that he has attacked on Twitter and on his blog, often based on the most spurious of information.
Is he anti-gay? I think probably not. His left-wing political stance wouldn’t allow him to express anti-gay or racist views even if he had them. But my belief is that he is motivated by jealousy. In years gone by, bitter men like Jeremy Duns would sit alone muttering about how life had treated them unfairly or writing angry letters to local newspapers and politicians which would almost always be ignored. No one would care about their views and least of all take them seriously. The internet has given them a voice, and they are keen to take advantage of it to heckle, bully and taunt. Jeremy Duns is just one of many, unfortunately. The question of course is what can be done about them.
As, I said it is a fascinating view, and adds a lot of our knowledge. Whether Duns is right-wing or left-wing is not really the point. I think Nancy is right to describe him as a moral fascist: his bullying, the violence of his language, the anger, and the threats to anyone who disagrees with him, these are all fascist traits. I think she underplays the hatred of women and gays that runs through his work. I have not yet investigated whether he is a racist or not. But certainly the writers he praises were.
Where I certainly agree with Nancy is that men like Duns represent everything that is ugly and wrong about our world. And what we have to do is women is work out ways of standing up to them.
Here is what Nancy has to say:
Maria, I have to say first that I don’t believe that you are correct to describe Jeremy Duns as right-wing. The impression I have gleaned is that he is in fact a left-wing moral fascist, the type who seem to dominate the Social Media networks these days.
I am currently working on a PhD dissertation on the growth of internet bullying, specifically on Twitter. The name of Jeremy Duns kept cropping up during my research, and that is what led me to your blog.
I am fascinated by what motivates people to bully on the internet. It is a relatively new phenomena and one which I think needs to be explored so that we can first understand it and then put in place safeguards to minimise it.
In the Spectator magazine British journalist Toby Young wrote an excellent article on the left-wing Twitterati as he describes it - http://www.spectator.co.uk/life/status-anxiety/8780801/the-tyranny-of-the-twitterati/ There is no doubt in my mind that Jeremy Duns is a member of this group.
It was only when Jeremy Duns revealed here that he had in fact been adopted by his step-father and changed his name that I realised what has made him the man he is. Jeremy Duns was adopted by a rich, successful man who was able to buy him the best possible education. He went to Winchester which is one of the top private schools in England and then to Oxford, one of the country’s best universities. He benefited from a truly privileged education out of the reach of most people. (Incidentally there is some confusion about private and public schools. Jeremy Duns went to Winchester which in England is described as a public school. However it is a very expensive private school and only the wealthiest of students can attend. In the United States, a public school is a Government school open to anyone. That can cause confusion!)
As an aside, it is interesting how many of his Social Media friends went the same route. I have looked at many of the people that he corresponds with on Twitter and it is noticeable that many are from the north of England who went to top universities such as Oxford and Cambridge but then went on to have less than successful careers. Like Jeremy Duns they seem to take pleasure in attacking others from what they see as the moral high ground, the trademark of the left-wing moral fascist. The Twitterati as Toby Young calls them.
Great things were expected of Jeremy Duns when he was young, but recently he celebrated his fortieth birthday and it is clear that he has been far from successful. Despite applying for jobs on most major newspapers the only post he could get was on a small magazine in Belgium, where he failed to shine. He wrote a handful of mediocre spy novels that failed to sell. Despite the most privileged of educations, he is now basically a house-husband living with a more successful Swedish lady.
It is interesting that much of his writing is set around the time of the Cambridge Five, the notorious double agents who were recruited at university. I would be very surprised if Jeremy Duns had not applied to work for MI5 and MI6 (the English equivalent of the CIA) , and his wish to write spy books reflects the fact that he was rejected by them. In fact Jeremy Duns has been plagued by rejection his whole life – by his biological father, by newspapers, by the intelligence agencies, and by the book-buying public.
My feeling is that it is this rejection manifested itself in a jealousy that now motivates him and in fact it is what motivates most of the bullies who operate on Twitter. It is noticeable that Jeremy Duns tends to attack successful writers and journalists, those who have the careers that he wanted and was denied. A simple Google search will show up a long list of people that he has attacked on Twitter and on his blog, often based on the most spurious of information.
Is he anti-gay? I think probably not. His left-wing political stance wouldn’t allow him to express anti-gay or racist views even if he had them. But my belief is that he is motivated by jealousy. In years gone by, bitter men like Jeremy Duns would sit alone muttering about how life had treated them unfairly or writing angry letters to local newspapers and politicians which would almost always be ignored. No one would care about their views and least of all take them seriously. The internet has given them a voice, and they are keen to take advantage of it to heckle, bully and taunt. Jeremy Duns is just one of many, unfortunately. The question of course is what can be done about them.
As, I said it is a fascinating view, and adds a lot of our knowledge. Whether Duns is right-wing or left-wing is not really the point. I think Nancy is right to describe him as a moral fascist: his bullying, the violence of his language, the anger, and the threats to anyone who disagrees with him, these are all fascist traits. I think she underplays the hatred of women and gays that runs through his work. I have not yet investigated whether he is a racist or not. But certainly the writers he praises were.
Where I certainly agree with Nancy is that men like Duns represent everything that is ugly and wrong about our world. And what we have to do is women is work out ways of standing up to them.
Friday, 24 January 2014
The Shocking Sexism of Luca Veste
I have never heard of the writer Luca Veste until a few weeks ago when he started to post some tweets about how he had 'trapped' me.
The background is this. I set up this blog to scrutinise the work of the right-wing public school commentator Jeremy Duns. But Duns and his gang of right-wing writers are so sexist that they cannot accept a mere woman would dare to stand up to them. So they keep insisting this blog is the work of a man, even though I am quite open about who I am.
The latest to join the hunt was 'Veste', who laid what he described as 'traps' that led Duns to conclude this blog was written by a man called Gerrard Killoran. As it turned it, it was a mistake, and Duns had to apologise soon afterwards. But in the meantime, Veste put out some smug tweets about how clever his 'traps' were.
What sort of man I wondered can talk about laying 'traps' for a woman? The language was so extreme, and so violent, that it led me to take a look at Veste's most recent book, 'Dead Gone'. What I found in this book was I believe genuinely shocking, and it tells me that something has to be done if women are to feel safe anywhere.
Readers of crime fiction have already started to complain about the obsession male writers have with extreme violence against women. I have already blogged about this in the work of David Hewson and Ian Rankin - and suffered terrible levels of abuse from the Duns gang as a result. But Veste has taken it to the most extreme level yet.
The book opens with a genuinely creepy description of a young women being sadistically tortured and murdered. A man captures her on the way back from a nigh club, which in Veste's world automatically marks her out as a 'bad girl' who needs to be tortured and killed.
Later on when the detective discovers her, she is described as being 'spread-eagled' on the ground, a shocking use of female sexual imagery. Clearly the author believes that any woman who opens her legs deserves what is coming to her.
There is worse to come. The story develops into one of a sick individual who carries out a series of 'experiments' on women. The descriptions are horrible to read, taking a perverse pleasure, it seems to me, in what is being described. In one scene a women is told that she will be tortured unless she is 'good'. In another, there is a discussion of slowly bleeding a women to death, a clear reference to the female menstrual cycle. The women in the story are kept locked in a cellar, and subject to levels of abuse that are both psychological and physical. At one point, one of the is described as 'begging for death, in much the same way a sexist male might describe a women as 'begging' for sex.
It was shocking to read, and I was asking myself as I read it, what sort of man could write this and why? And why would they think that anyone would want to read it?
There is a regrettable trend towards the use of graphic violence against women in the crime genre, and several women writers have courageously spoken out against it. But Veste has taken it to a new and horrific level.
Violence against women has become part of our culture, and in my view men such as Veste are responsible for that.
The issue now for women is how we stop them - and protect our bodies from further violence.
I believe that it is shocking that a major publishing company would bring out a book such as 'Dead Gone' - it is published by Avon, which is owned by Harper Collins, which in turn in owned by Rupert Murdoch, the same man who gave us Page 3 girls.
I will be blogging some more about this book over the next few weeks.
But the most important question to be asked I think is how can a book like this be stopped?
The background is this. I set up this blog to scrutinise the work of the right-wing public school commentator Jeremy Duns. But Duns and his gang of right-wing writers are so sexist that they cannot accept a mere woman would dare to stand up to them. So they keep insisting this blog is the work of a man, even though I am quite open about who I am.
The latest to join the hunt was 'Veste', who laid what he described as 'traps' that led Duns to conclude this blog was written by a man called Gerrard Killoran. As it turned it, it was a mistake, and Duns had to apologise soon afterwards. But in the meantime, Veste put out some smug tweets about how clever his 'traps' were.
What sort of man I wondered can talk about laying 'traps' for a woman? The language was so extreme, and so violent, that it led me to take a look at Veste's most recent book, 'Dead Gone'. What I found in this book was I believe genuinely shocking, and it tells me that something has to be done if women are to feel safe anywhere.
Readers of crime fiction have already started to complain about the obsession male writers have with extreme violence against women. I have already blogged about this in the work of David Hewson and Ian Rankin - and suffered terrible levels of abuse from the Duns gang as a result. But Veste has taken it to the most extreme level yet.
The book opens with a genuinely creepy description of a young women being sadistically tortured and murdered. A man captures her on the way back from a nigh club, which in Veste's world automatically marks her out as a 'bad girl' who needs to be tortured and killed.
Later on when the detective discovers her, she is described as being 'spread-eagled' on the ground, a shocking use of female sexual imagery. Clearly the author believes that any woman who opens her legs deserves what is coming to her.
There is worse to come. The story develops into one of a sick individual who carries out a series of 'experiments' on women. The descriptions are horrible to read, taking a perverse pleasure, it seems to me, in what is being described. In one scene a women is told that she will be tortured unless she is 'good'. In another, there is a discussion of slowly bleeding a women to death, a clear reference to the female menstrual cycle. The women in the story are kept locked in a cellar, and subject to levels of abuse that are both psychological and physical. At one point, one of the is described as 'begging for death, in much the same way a sexist male might describe a women as 'begging' for sex.
It was shocking to read, and I was asking myself as I read it, what sort of man could write this and why? And why would they think that anyone would want to read it?
There is a regrettable trend towards the use of graphic violence against women in the crime genre, and several women writers have courageously spoken out against it. But Veste has taken it to a new and horrific level.
Violence against women has become part of our culture, and in my view men such as Veste are responsible for that.
The issue now for women is how we stop them - and protect our bodies from further violence.
I believe that it is shocking that a major publishing company would bring out a book such as 'Dead Gone' - it is published by Avon, which is owned by Harper Collins, which in turn in owned by Rupert Murdoch, the same man who gave us Page 3 girls.
I will be blogging some more about this book over the next few weeks.
But the most important question to be asked I think is how can a book like this be stopped?
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...http://storify.com/pindarninja/an-epic-twitter-rant-against-glenn-greenwald. 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 -
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...http://storify.com/pindarninja/an-epic-twitter-rant-against-glenn-greenwald. 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.
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.
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.
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.
Stephen Hildon @StephenHildon
@MariaJames9 @NeilClark66 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.
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.
Stephen Hildon
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.
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.
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 @ilkleychess for saying they were @mariajames9, 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.http://selenakitt.com/blog/index.php/2013/10/15/porn-hunt-2013-gossip-boys-researching-porn-real-hard/
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.
You can read it in full here.http://selenakitt.com/blog/index.php/2013/10/15/porn-hunt-2013-gossip-boys-researching-porn-real-hard/
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.
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...http://jeremyduns-watch.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/jeremy-duns-promoting-sexism.html. 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.
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...http://jeremyduns-watch.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/jeremy-duns-promoting-sexism.html. 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.
.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)