David Hewson's Sexism & Bullying

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

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

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

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

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

With yet more violence.

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

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

What are the lies?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is Duns A Woman-Hater - More Shocking Evidence

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

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

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

That same day Duns launched a vicious attach on Brooke on Twitter accusing her of stealing the article from Wikipedia. There are some examples here - https://twitter.com/Neuro_Skeptic/status/302110888935178242

Here is the article.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/sex/valentines-day/9867756/Valentines-Day-2013-A-history-of-romantic-and-not-so-romantic-Valentine-traditions.html

And here is the Wikipedia entry she is meant to have taken it from - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valentine's_Day

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

So why did Duns decide to heap abuse on her?

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

She has written courageously about how women can behave s they want to without being attacked for it - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/sex/9874853/Drunk-or-flirty-women-who-are-attacked-do-not-ask-for-it.html

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I will start with the case of David Hewson.

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

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

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

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

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

This is at all not true.

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

Why is it that the victims have to be women?

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

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

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

But writers like Hewson have decided to ignore that.

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

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

It is typical of the attitude

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

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

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

It is disgusting, and it has to be stopped.

Duns - Raping Women Is Not Acceptable.

Jeremy Duns has once again been telling the world how much he admires Ian Fleming. In the LA Times, he sings the praises of 'Casino Royale'.

‘Casino Royale’ is probably my favorite novel by Fleming: It’s a taut, brutal, devastating book. I also love his short stories, particularly ‘Octopussy’ and ‘The Living Daylights,’ which also show the more human side of Bond. I enjoy the series most when there’s a friction between the thrilling fantasy of this globetrotting superman and the real and dirty world of espionage, and that’s something I guess I’ve tried to re-create in my own work.” - Duns. 

I think that statement is perfectly clear. 

Duns thinks Casino Royale is one of the best books he has ever read. He does not have a word of criticism for it. 

So consider this point. 

Casino Royale is one of the most extreme women-hating books in modern British literature. There may be worst stuff in hardcore porn. But in books published by mainstream publishers, this is as bad as it gets.

I have pointed out before that the book ends with the line: 'The bitch is dead', in reference to the heroine of the story, Vesper Lynd.

But that is far from the worst of it.

What about this line?

"And now he knew that she was profoundly, excitingly sensual, but that the conquest of her body, because of the central privacy in her, would each time have the sweet tang of rape."

(There is a reference here if you want to read it).

Near the beginning there is this line -

 "women are for sex only, on the job they get in the way with their emotional baggage"

The sweet tang of rape? Women are for sex only? How can anyone get away with supporting this kind of writing. 

 Of course, Fleming is full of this kind of stomach-churning sexism. Take this line from 'The Spy Who Loved Me'. "All women love semi-rape. They love to be taken."

(There is a reference here.)

Now, I know that Duns's little army of rape-deniers and abuse-deniers will immediately jump onto the comments section of this blog, and start arguing that the world was very different when Casino Royale was published in 1953. And they will say it is just a piece of fluff, not to be taken seriously. 

Wrong, wrong. 

It is true that the world was more sexist in the 1950s than it is now. Women were not allowed into the workplace, or into politics, in the way they are now. But it was also more respectful towards women's bodies, even within the paramenters of male ownership. I do not believe it was normal in the 1950s for writers to refer to the 'sweet tang of rape'. Show me four or five other books from that era, or films, or songs, that use that kind of extreme women-hating language? 

They just are not there. 

Casino Royale was not typical of its times. It was an extreme women-hating book then, and it is now.

Also, this is not fluff. The whole point of a feminist analysis of society is that it is cultural sexism that matters the most. While women may have legal equality, they are very far from having real equality, because men still treat us as objects, and threaten us with violence everyday. So books like this are the real problem. When men like Duns (right-wing and public school, as you might expect) champion them, what they are doing is championing a culture in which rape and violence against women is seen as acceptable. 

Perhaps the worst of it is that Duns actually describes himself as feminist. 

No doubt he thinks that makes him look cool and right-on - and might even sell a few of his books. 

But no feminist could possibly cite Casino Royale as one of thir favourite books.

You are not fooling anyone. 

You are a women-hater, who through his work turns women into victims of violence every day. 

Jeremy Duns - Calling Women Bitches Is Repugnant

After I blogged about Duns's un-authorised taping of telephone conversations, I was subjected to a wave of vile sexist abuse.

One of Duns's supporters described me as a 'bitch'.

I highlighted this as an example of women-hating, and went on to explore in more depth the evidence of Duns's sexism in articles he has written. 

Duns has responded to my points. You can read his full answer below. On the 'bitch' point, he states that he cannot be held responsible for the comments of his followers. "The idea that I am responsible for what people who follow me on Twitter write is daft – after all, you follow me on Twitter. I don’t know the person who referred to you in the comments here as a ‘man’s bitch’ at all, but they thought you were Steve Roach, who is of course a man," writes Duns.

This is an extraordinary statement to make, and one that deserves to be exposed for the violent woman-hating nonsense it is. 

Duns is publicly stating that it is acceptable to call people 'bitches' so long as they think they are a man (just as his loyal sidekick Steve Mosby, who has threatened me over this blog, thinks it is okay to call people 'cunts'). Why he thinks I am a man is very odd in itself, except that in Duns's world of right-wing, public school writers all women are either housewives or whores, not people with their own views. But leave that aside. Is it okay to call black people 'niggers' - if you happen to have mistakenly decided they are white. Of course not. It is a vile racist term. By the same token, 'bitch' is a vile sexist term. 

'Bitch' is a word that is no longer acceptable in any circumstances.

Duns could have taken the opportunity to disown it. And yet his choice was to defend it.

That is morally repugnant. 

But then Duns defends other writers who use it.

Duns has written extensively in praise of the book 'Casino Royale'. You can read one of his articles here. 

The last line of that book (referring to the heroine Vesper Lynd) is this. "The bitch is dead now."

(there is a link here). In fact he refers to her as 'bitch' several times in the book (a link is here). 

So Duns praises a book in which a women is described a 'bitch' without a word of criticism of that expression. 

'Bitch' has become a word that symbolises male violence towards women. 

Every day women are attacked and hurt because men like Duns promote a culture in which violence against women is seen as cool and acceptable. 

It has to stop. 

Does Duns Hate Women - An Open Reply

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

This is a ridiculous thing to say.

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is not good enough.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why Telephone Taping Is Immoral - An Open Letter To Duns

Since you have replied at length to my earlier post I will answer your points, even though it probably means that I will be subjected to yet more violent personal abuse by you and your followers.

Readers of this blog should be aware of one thing, however. I only set it up because when I tried to post questions on Duns's own blog, he did not run them. Duns himself is always allowed to comment on this blog, at whatever length he likes, and his comments are never edited. He is entitled to state his defence fairly. I, on the other hand, have been subjected to several threats of legal action and vicious personal abuse merely for raising legitimate points about his behavior.I suppose that is what public school, right-wing writers like Duns think is fair. 

New readers can catch up on this debate on earlier posts. In brief, Duns recorded a phone conversation with the writer Steve Roach without his permission. In my view, this may well be banned if the tape was not for personal use (and Duns later wrote extensively about it). That aside, it was certainly immoral - and the rest of this post will explain why.


I find it extra-ordinary that you have resorted to the argument that you needed to tape your phone conversation with Steve Roach because Stephen Leather threatened you with libel. To begin with, I can find no evidence of that threat apart from one flippant Tweet. If I am wrong please correct me. Have you received a lawyer's letter? If so please post it here, or on your own blog. If not, you cannot seriously claim to have been threatened with legal action - and so that is not a serious defense of your actions. 

The arrogance of your claim that you - one person on Twitter - can put himself on the same level as Panorama is breath-taking. Panorama is a major news program. Its reporters and editors are accoutable for their actions. If they make a mistake they get in trouble. But you are acountable to no one. If you overstep the mark, who do you report to? Nobody. It is only legitimate for jounalists to tape conversations because they are subject to supervision. It is not legitimate for everyone to tape phone calls. If we go down that path, all our calls will soon be recorded.

It is clear that you quite regularly make mistakes in your work. Here is one example here.When you make mistakes like that, who do you report to? Nobody. So it completely wrong to compare yourself to a major news organisation.

You have still not answered my questions about your qualifications as a journalist. Have you been trained in journalism and if so where? Have you ever been on the staff of a major news outlet? Are you a member of the National Union of Journalists? If the answer to those questions is no, then your claim to be acting as a reporter is very, very weak. 

You state that "the very word ‘recording’ is an emotive one, and has connotations of hacking, tapping and other illegal and unrelated activities that have been in the news." Well, it does. In fact, what you have done is far worse than anything News International did in the phone hacking affair.

There are two reasons why that is so. First, when you leave a message on an answer phone you know you are being taped, even though you do not expect that tape to be hacked. When you make a personal phone call you have every right to assume it is not being taped.

Second, News International is at least subject to legal and regulatory oversight.  People can complain to the Press Complaints Commission about them. Murdoch can be called before Parliament. But who are people going to complain to when you injure them? Nobody.

So it is far, far worse.


You state that there is no difference between taping a phone conversation and making notes of it. There is a huge moral difference. You are entitled to make notes as your record of the conversation, just as you can make notes of anything that happens to you. It is a very different matter to record a person's voice without their permission - that is a gross invasion of their right to privacy. It is a form of theft. Can you really not see that? Would you not accept that there is a clear difference between making a note of what someone looks like and filming them in secret and then broadcasting the images? Or is it that because you went to a famous public school you think you are entitled to treat the surfs in any way you like.


As I have said, I agree it is not clear that you broke the law in taping that conversation. Unless charges are bought we will not know. You are of course innocent until proven guilty.

But to me what you did was morally repugnant. And it was dangerous to our civil liberties to a very high degree.

It is time you stopped trying to defend it, and made an apology for your actions.