Does Duns Hate Women?

It is probably not a surprise that Jeremy Duns and his little club of right-wing thriller writers have accused me of being a man.

Duns has stated clearly that I am Steve Roach.

I guess in his public school/spy circles, a women's place is in the kitchen, or the bedroom. It obviously has not occured to him that a mere women might be capable of having a debate, and even questioning a man on points of principle.

There is something very creepy about the attacks you have made on me. I have raised a legitimate issue about whether it was ethical or legal to record a telephone conversation with Steve Roach without asking his permission. You are perfectly entitled to argue that it is. I disagree. But it should be possible to have a civilised debate about that without stooping to personal abuse.

You - and your supporters - have threatened me with legal action, and you have yourself stated that you have been making enquiries about where I live. Surely you can understand that for a group of men who boast about their connections to the security services to demand the address of a women is in itself designed to be intimidating.

Your follower - Mr Cartright - refers to me as 'Leather's bitch'?

Do you condone that kind of language?

Are you in fact Mr Cartright and is that how you normally refer to women?


Violence against women - like unauthorised surveillance - is a serious problem in our society.

I refer you to this website - which has many of the relevant statistics.

A staggering 43% of young women in London (aged 18-34) experienced sexual harassment in public spaces over the last year.
One in 10 women has been raped, and more than a third subjected to sexual assault according to this research.

It seems to me that insisting that a women is a man when she raises a serious issue and then calling her a 'bitch' (a man's bitch at that) is directly creating a culture in which that happens.

There are serious, important issue, and you should answer them.

Jeremy, Why Did You Change Your Story?

Dear Jeremy,

Judging by your second reply, you seem to be slowly acknowledging the accuracy of what I am saying.

As I said before, it doesn't really matter who I am. I respect your right to raise issues you believe are important to you. But I am entitled to do the same.

What matters is the issue and the strength of the argument on either side.

In one blog post you said you taped the converstation with Steve Roach because you were 'a journalist investigating a crime'.

The you said it was it was because it was for personal use.

It was either one or the other. You have changed your story.

You are right that we are all entitled to record personal calls. By personal, most people mean calls to their mum. Or husband. Or whoever. They don't mean calls which are then extensively written up all over Twitter, the blogs, and then in several newspapers.

It is true that you could have made notes of the conversation and perfectly legally written it up. But you didn't. You taped it. You may think the law on preventing taping of calls is silly. You may well be right in that view. But it happens to be the law.

I happen to think it is important. At the moment, the likes of Vodafone and Barclays don't routinely record all our calls - at least not without asking our permission. But if we allow people like you to do it then they soon will.

So it matters. The surveillance society is encroaching on all of us and we have to make a stand.

At the very least, you could admit you were  wrong to tape the call with Steve Roach.

Incidentally, there is nothing abusive about calling you a right-wing public school man. You are a man (I'm happy to be corrected on this point - but it certainly appears that way). According to this website you went to Horris Hill prep school (current fees £7500 per term). And then to boarding school - not many of those in the state sector! As for right-wing, every article by you I can find is very right-wing. But hey, maybe you just write that kind of stuff for the Torygraph for the money.