Wednesday, 12 September 2012

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.


  1. Let's break this down.

    Seeing as you don't even know your own name, I'd say you've royally fucked yourself over from the start.

    Your grammar and spelling is atrocious for someone pretending to be a lawyer.

    You also need to check your procedure if you think you can go to the DPP to report an offence - that's another glaring error that no lawyer would make.

    Sure I condone the kind of language I used in the context I meant it. That's why I made it. But context means nothing to you as this, your latest post, proves to everyone. I was clearly referring to Steve Roach, as anyone with a rudimentary understanding of English would understand. If you're not Roach, then why are you rushing to be so injured by someone calling him 'Leather's bitch'? You're overreaction doesn't convince anyone.

    I hope I'm the last person to give a shit about what you write here. I doubt Duns can be bothered to reply. He's said all that he needs to on the matter. As has everyone else. Anything (and everything) that you say is just trolling.

    Now, man up and fuck off.

  2. Could the person who administers this site please do something to confirm I have nothing to do with it.

    I'm not sure how you can do this, but I am being accused of being you and it feels like I am stuck in revolving door.

    Even better if you could shut the whole thing down.

  3. R Cartwright:
    This is Steve Roach. I have NOTHING to do with this blog.
    I'd appreciate it if you stop trying to argue that this blog is anything to do with me. How the fuck I am supposed to prove that this blog has nothing to do with me, I have no idea. I'm going to have to trust that Jeremy Duns does indeed expose the real owner of this blog and, when he does, to post that it has nothing to do with me.

    To the blog owner:
    I don't believe your real name is Maria, and I don't believe that this blog is intended for anything other than to cause mischief. Again, all you are doing is muddying the waters by dragging my name repeatedly into your posts. If you think you are doing me some kind of favour, you aren't. Now, I haven't got the time to try and trace who you really are, nor do I have the resources to attempt any legal action to take this blog down. This said, if you continue you post and continue to drag my name into whatever it is you're trying to accomplish, I will take it as a definite sign of hostility and, if Jeremy Duns does find out who you are, I will pay you a personal visit and punch you on the nose. For this purpose, if you do turn out to be a woman, I will force aside my views on hitting women for this one special occasion.

  4. I see this blog is still here.

    Firstly. Can I use this post to apologise to Steve Roach for any and all of my actions in this affair.

    Secondly. To the owner of this blog.

    You've seen what I have written and ignored it. Please don't ignore what Steve Roach has asked of you, if you really care for his feelings.

  5. Gerard, it is now very clear that you have set up this blog. You have an obsession with private schools - so does this blog. You have posted on my website about Glenn Greenwald, but also posted on Sean Cregan's site claiming I have acted unlawfully, in almost the precise same terms as here - you are the only person to do so except this blog. You have aggressively questioned me on Twitter about Assange-related matters, but you also accused me of bullying Steve Roach just three days before this blog was set up.

    In short, there simply cannot be two people who are both:

    Aware of this affair
    Think I acted unlawfully despite being constantly pointed towards the law
    Have publicly claimed I have bullied Steve Roach
    Are obsessed with private schooling

    The latter is a smoking gun, of course, as it is totally irrelevant to this matter. So it is transparently obvious that this blog is being run by you.

    I know your IP address. 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.

    If the blogs are still here by Monday morning. If they are mysteriously deleted before then, I won't do anything at all. So it's up to you. I wouldn't call my bluff on this. You tried that by lying outright when I asked if you had claimed I acted unlawfully. It didn't work.

    So I suggest you delete these blogs now.

  6. Let me make this clear.

    Google will give me the IP address that set up these two blogs, but it will take legal action for them to do it:

    (See ‘For legal reasons’.)

    That will be a big hassle for me, and I really don't want to go there. If you take the blogs down before Monday, I won't. But if you leave them up, thinking I’m bluffing or that the IP won't incriminate you because you set the blogs up when you were on holiday in Dalyan or whatever, I'll be even more pissed off than I am already, because you'd have turned down the chance to stop this and forced me to pursue you through British courts - and so I will pursue it as a result. These blogs are defamatory, as you well know.

    It will be a hassle for me to prove legally that it is you, but I will be able to do it.

    You may think it’s worth the risk. You may also be thinking that deleting the blogs now will show everyone it was you so it’s a better bet to leave them up and hope. I think this would be a mistake. I know it’s you anyway, as does anyone who has read my Twitter feed – but that’s it. It’s hard to prove beyond any doubt anyway, and just by denying it you have created more doubt. If the blogs are deleted there will still be no proof it was you - I have already reported them to Google so it might simply be that they agreed there was a problem - and of course I won’t have any desire to pursue this further with them gone.

    But even without total proof, I can if I want show you did this to most people’s satisfaction – the chances it isn't you are in fact billions to one. I've screengrabbed all of these, so there’s no point in deleting things, as you’ve already started to.

    This is you, retired lecturer Gerard Killoran:

    Here’s your Twitter account, which shows you are a retired lecturer and a chess-lover:

    And this is you again, with the same photo as on Facebook, and a mention of chess, but this time using the name ‘Coventrian’:

    The photo and the chess are not *legal* proof that you and ‘Coventrian’ are the same person. But anyone can see you are, because alternatives would have to be so outlandish – there’s no reason why someone would steal your photo, or set up a fake Facebook account, and so on. A further layer is provided by this link, where ‘Coventrian’ says ‘Ullathorne was the best comp in Coventry - in fact the best school’:

    Within the last few hours you've changed the account setting so that comment now reads as written by Guest, not as Coventrian, but I have screengrabs. I can’t show them here, but I can on Twitter, or on my blog, or elsewhere. And the fact that ‘Coventrian’ has suddenly become ‘Guest’ offers more evidence it’s you, as there is no plausible reason why a commenter at The Telegraph’s site should suddenly switch his identity to Guest on a comment he made last November within 24 hours of me alleging it is you... unless it is you. If it were someone else, they wouldn’t even be aware of this, and would have had no reason to change their identity, either. Anyway, here’s a profile for you at Ullathorne school in Coventry:

    If all this were not enough, as ‘Coventrian’ you made comments to my blog and someone else's. The stable IP address locates you to Ilksley, where your Facebook account and others state you live, and which your Twitter account and blog have in their name.
    So you are, beyond any reasonable doubt, ‘Coventrian’.

  7. As 'Coventrian', you posted two comments beneath my blogpost about Glenn Greenwald:

    It’s clear you were annoyed at what I'd written. On top of journalists attacking Greenwald in the British press, and some referring to my blogpost, you were incensed at the anti-Assange crowd, of whom you think I am one, and of whom you erroneously believe all are right wing.

    Someone on Twitter who is not an Assange fan tweeted a link to one of my blogposts about Stephen Leather. You read my blog and found Steve Roach’s comments in which he was angry at me for recording him, and accused me of breaking the law. I explained to him I hadn’t, but you had seen an opportunity. On August 26, you asked on Twitter ‘who is really bullying Steve Roach?’, implying I was. Here’s the screengrab:

    This is you on Twitter, under your own name, accusing me about Steve Roach, the topic of this blog, set up just three days later. I have all the evidence for this: you accused me on Sean Cregan’s blog under the name Coventrian of acting unlawfully, and I can prove it. But there is of course the matter of proving you also set up these blogs. We’re already in odds of millions to one it isn’t you, as your comments at that blog are very similar to the ones here, and you repeatedly insisted even when pointed out to you reasonably that I acted unlawfully. So there would have to be two people independently deciding, at the same time, to libel me about exactly the same thing, insisting on it against all the evidence in the same way, and yet not referring to each other. This is incredibly unlikely, but in this post and the last you gave the game away by ranting about my being educated privately. This is clearly totally irrelevant to my dealings with Steve Roach and the law, ie the supposed purpose of the blog. ‘Maria James’ wrote here:

    ‘It is what I would expect of a right-wing, public school male.’

    You, Gerard Killoran, aka Coventrian, have an obsession with this same obscure topic, which is totally irrelevant to the supposed concern of this blog:

    ‘Obvously a public school education was a waste of money for little Danny Knowles.’

    ‘Is this what they teach in public school?’

    ‘End charity status for public schools now. They are not charities.’

    There are many others in this vein. I’ve screengrabbed them all so there's no point in deleting them – and that is just more damning, as explained.

    So even without the IP of whoever set up these blogs, the simple fact is it must be you. The alternative is that you posted to my blog angrily, tweeted I was bullying Steve Roach, accused me of acting unlawfully at Sean Cregan’s blog, and that entirely coincidentally someone else also has a grudge against me and set up these blogs just three days after your tweet, and made the same accusations in much the same way... and *both* of you happen to have an obsessive hatred of public schools.

    I think anyone will be able to see this is you even wihout the legal proof. So while I am trying to prove it legally, which I will do, I will also make all this very clear, wherever I can.

    If you delete the blogs, I'll leave the subject completely. I won’t suggest you did it, won’t comment on it, and of course all of this vanishes, too. But you’ve wasted enough of my time. You've impersonated a female lawyer to intimidate me and defame me. If you decide to call my bluff, I won’t take it lying down, believe me. I've had enough, and you've had your chances.

  8. How boring of you, Gerard, to be ignoring this while you flit off to make yet more comments under an article by Nick Cohen.

    I don't care how much you state this isn't your doing. I have proof you are Coventrian, and under that name you made the same allegations as here. You might be able to convince someome very gullible that someone else happens to share your obsession with public schools, but I'm afraid there's no way around it. And you have left a trail of amazing crap all over the net - which I have screengrabbed. So it doesn't much matter if you delete, or change identities, or whatever you do. You're Gerard Killoran, you set up this blog, and it is now way past time you took it and the similarly-named one down.

    I know a lot about you now, and you have deliberately and rather elaborately smeared me in public so I'm pissed off - as well as suing you I am well prepared to publish it all. And I can assure you, you won't like it.

  9. Jeremy

    As you can see I have twice asked for the owner of this blog to take it down.

    Both I and Steve Roach have tried appealing to his (and I believe him to be a man too) better nature. It hasn't worked.

    I may be many things. I may be stupid. However I'm not so stupid that I'd keep this blog up for a minute if I had the power to take it down. I wish it wasn't here. I wish it had never been here.

    I now hope either:

    1. This blog disappears as soon as possible.


    2. You find out who is behind it even sooner.

    Can I repeat that I accept you behaved lawfully and I am prepared to make a statement to that effect wherever and to whoever you need me to do so.

    I can understand your anger. I can understand Steve Roach's anger too. The post above is particularly despicable.

    As a last appeal to the owner of this blog.

    Take it down. Take it down now, Please.

  10. 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.

  11. I now have the IP address of the person who set up this site - I've found a visit from the admin area here straight to my blog. So I know who did this.

    I don't want to take it further, but will if this stays up. Your choice, Mr/Mrs.

  12. This comment has been removed by the author.

  13. Despite all the bullying that has been going on, I am heartened to see that the blog is still up and running. Does that mean it wasn't Gerard who set it up? Will Mr Duns be apologising to him in the same way that he has already apologised to Steve Roach. This seems to be the way that Mr Duns operates. He attacks people with unsubstaniated allegations and then (sometimes) apologises when he is wrong. Mr Duns is a bully and like all bullies he is all wind and no trousers. Come on Mr Duns, carry out your threats and get this blog taken down. I don't think you can because every word is true. You are a liar. You are a bully. You are a mysoginist. And you are an unethical journalist.

  14. Hello, Stephen! I see from your sockpuppet Twitter account that you have finally discovered this blog's existence. Are my allegations really unsubstantiated? I don't know, because you never answer them. Have you ever posted racist abuse online, using the identities 'Big Nick Palmer', 'stephenleather' and 'Joe King'?

    As for my being mysognynistic, bullying and unethical, I think perhaps you have got so confused from creating all these multiple identities that you've confused me with yourself! I've answered all this here:

    1. TheLegalEagle writes awfully a lot like Maria.

  15. You are clearly deluded on this. You sound like on of those Joe Konrath fans.

  16. Did you seet his,Maria? Jeremy Duns has been rewriting his own Wikipedia entry. There is, of course, now no mention of his mysogenistic tendencies.

  17. Pretty good post. I just stumbled upon your site and wanted to say that I have really enjoyed
    reading your site. Any way I'll be subscribing to your feed and I hope you post again soon.

    flights to Umrah
    cheap flight to jeddah
    flights to jeddah
    umrah jeddah flights
    umrah flights from London
    cheap flights to umrah