It will surprise no one to know that I am a firm and fervent supporter of the right to pseudonymity on the Internet.
Maria James “jerermyduns-watch” 12th September:
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.
I note with interest that “Maria James” has a profile on her blogspot, and that links to GooglePlus and doesn’t share anything with anyone. I find this of interest because if I wanted to set up a fake profile for myself that’s exactly what I’d use:
Because they’re worried about trolls faking up Google Plus identities, the folks behind Google Plus have set up a mechanism to report suspect accounts, have them frozen, and demand verification of identity in order to unlock them. Gary Walker went to work and tested this, with predictably hilarious results (well, hilarious if you haven’t just had your GMail account deleted for the temerity of having a name beginning with Mac- or O’-):
….
I’m not going to give you a TL;DR summary of Gary’s findings; let’s just say they’re extremely alarming. Send a poison pen email and you can get an account suspended until the owner verifies their identity by sending a scan of some ID. Use Photoshop to bolt together a fake driving license with a fucking spree killer’s face on it and you can get an account re-enabled. I’m willing to bet that the process for hijacking someone else’s account is not much more complicated.
Now let’s move on to the Twitter conversation today.
@ilkleychess Can you please delete your two blogs about me in which you impersonate a human rights lawyer? Thanks.
— Jeremy Duns (@jeremyduns) September 14, 2012
@ilkleychess @portraitinflesh @daaronovitch Can you get off Twitter now and delete the blogs you set up about me impersonating a lawyer?
— Jeremy Duns (@jeremyduns) September 14, 2012
@daaronovitch @ilkleychess @portraitinflesh Indeed. He’s also set up a blog to smear me for breaking the law, and I want him to remove it.
— Jeremy Duns (@jeremyduns) September 14, 2012
@jeremyduns @charliebeckett Who is impersonating lawyers?
— Gerard Killoran (@IlkleyChess) September 14, 2012
@jeremyduns @daaronovitch @portraitinflesh This a barefaced lie. I have done nothing of the sort.
— Gerard Killoran (@IlkleyChess) September 14, 2012
@jeremyduns @louisxivsunking @daaronovitch @ilkleychess Nothing says “I have confidence in my political views” like smearing your opponents.
— Tom Doran (@portraitinflesh) September 14, 2012
@ilkleychess @charliebeckett You are. Do you deny that you set up the blog jerermyduns-watch.blogspot.co.uk?
— Jeremy Duns (@jeremyduns) September 14, 2012
My name is Emily James, and I am a human rights lawyer who campaigns against the surveillance society.
And it ends:
Posted by Maria James at 09:42
Various crashing errors in the blog make clear that it was not posted by a lawyer, or anyone with a working knowledge of the law. “Maria James” claims:
Just because you write for the arts pages once or twice a year, you do not have carte blanche to tape phone conversations whenever you feel like it.
And also:
I intend to pass these points on to the Director of Public Prosecutions on the grounds that an offence may have been committed. I hope that they decide to follow them up. The spread of telephone taping is insidious and we have to make a stand against it.
Whoever “Maria James” may be, s/he is no lawyer. A lawyer would know (or would know how to look up) that it is legal for anyone to tape phonecalls for personal use, providing the recording is not then made public. Duns recorded the phone call to be able to accurately quote Steve Roach when he was writing the article: neither the recording nor transcript have been published.
And everyone should know that if you think a crime has been committed, you report it to the police. I cannot imagine Keir Starmer QC‘s reaction to getting a letter from a human rights lawyer notifying him that a writer in Sweden had taped a phonecall he made to a writer in England and would he follow it up.
@jeremyduns @charliebeckett I do. I have nothing to do with it.
— Gerard Killoran (@IlkleyChess) September 14, 2012
@ilkleychess Oh, really? Do you deny that you have repeatedly posted online accusing me of breaking the law?
— Jeremy Duns (@jeremyduns) September 14, 2012
@jeremyduns Could you stop making false accusations against me.
— Gerard Killoran (@IlkleyChess) September 14, 2012
@ilkleychess Ironic. Are you saying that is a false accusation – you’ve never accused me of unlawful behaviour?
— Jeremy Duns (@jeremyduns) September 14, 2012
@ilkleychess We can take this all the way or you can just quietly delete the blogs. Have you accused me of unlawful behaviour – yes or no?
— Jeremy Duns (@jeremyduns) September 14, 2012
@jeremyduns As I remember I tried to ask you about the rendition case – you wouldn’t respond.
— Gerard Killoran (@IlkleyChess) September 14, 2012
@ilkleychess I’m not talking about that. Have you accused me of unlawfully recording a phone call – yes or no?
— Jeremy Duns (@jeremyduns) September 14, 2012
@ilkleychess It’s a simple yes or no question. And as you would say: it’s important, and I think you should answer it.
— Jeremy Duns (@jeremyduns) September 14, 2012
@jeremyduns No I haven’t.
— Gerard Killoran (@IlkleyChess) September 14, 2012
@ilkleychess Interesting. You won’t mind if I prove it then, here on Twitter?
— Jeremy Duns (@jeremyduns) September 14, 2012
@ilkleychess I have to get some lunch. If both blogs have mysteriously vanished when I’m back, we’ll say no more about it. I’ll be an hour.
— Jeremy Duns (@jeremyduns) September 14, 2012
@ilkleychess I can prove you did this, and have all the screenshots to do so. It’ll take me about 10 tweets. Up to you: telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/34…
— Jeremy Duns (@jeremyduns) September 14, 2012
If someone makes a false claim about you in a newspaper column, you can sue them directly. On Amazon, say? Or Blogger? Very hard to.
— Jeremy Duns (@jeremyduns) September 14, 2012
I’ve spent a lot of time filling out a form from Google to try to get two blogs taken down: jerermyduns-watch.blogspot.co.uk and jeremyduns-watch.blogspot.co.uk
— Jeremy Duns (@jeremyduns) September 14, 2012
Both of these claim to have been set up by a human rights lawyer names Maria James, and accuse me of breaking the law, among other things.
— Jeremy Duns (@jeremyduns) September 14, 2012
All the allegations are false. I haven’t even responded to the most recent ones, because they’re obviously barmy, but I did earlier.
— Jeremy Duns (@jeremyduns) September 14, 2012
If I hadn’t, the blog would have worked as a smear against me, and would have sowed seeds of doubt that I’ve done something wrong.
— Jeremy Duns (@jeremyduns) September 14, 2012
It turns out that what I did was write a blogpost about the journalist Glenn Greenwald.
— Jeremy Duns (@jeremyduns) September 14, 2012
Here’s the post: jeremyduns.blogspot.se/2012/06/perils… I wrote it because I was irritated with Greenwald’s reporting about the Swedish judicial system.
— Jeremy Duns (@jeremyduns) September 14, 2012
He alleged it is oppressive, citing four documents. In that article, I prove that he misrepresented his sources – and hadn’t even read them.
— Jeremy Duns (@jeremyduns) September 14, 2012
Greenwald is one of most prominent journalists writing in support of Julian Assange at the moment. So some Assange supporters hate the post.
— Jeremy Duns (@jeremyduns) September 14, 2012
You can see one of these supporters is the first to comment on my post: someone calling themselves ‘Coventrian’.
— Jeremy Duns (@jeremyduns) September 14, 2012
This was back in June. ‘Coventrian’ supports Assange, and also hates the journalists Nick Cohen and David Aaronovitch because of Iraq.
— Jeremy Duns (@jeremyduns) September 14, 2012
‘Coventrian’ is a regular commenter at the site ‘Aaronovitch Watch’: aaronovitch.blogspot.se/2011/02/from-d…
— Jeremy Duns (@jeremyduns) September 14, 2012
It looks as if David Aaronovitch simply ignores that site, but I can’t ignore the one about me. It claims I broke the law. People read it.
— Jeremy Duns (@jeremyduns) September 14, 2012
‘Coventrian’ is Gerard Killoran, a former lecturer at University College London. He is on Twitter as @ilkleychess.
— Jeremy Duns (@jeremyduns) September 14, 2012
Here’s a photo of him on Facebook: facebook.com/gerard.killora… Here’s a photo of him as ‘Coventrian’: nanowrimo.org/en/participant…
— Jeremy Duns (@jeremyduns) September 14, 2012
If you scroll down his Twitter timeline, you’ll see he repeatedly and aggressively questions people, usually about Assange or politics.
— Jeremy Duns (@jeremyduns) September 14, 2012
Gerald was annoyed at my article on Glenn Greenwald, and I guess more annoyed as it was retweeted quite a lot.
— Jeremy Duns (@jeremyduns) September 14, 2012
So Gerald hatched a plot.
— Jeremy Duns (@jeremyduns) September 14, 2012
I was at that point banned from Twitter for being a spammer. But here’s where Gerald leapt from Greenwald to Leather: twitter.com/jeremyduns/sta…
— Jeremy Duns (@jeremyduns) September 14, 2012
Three days later, the blog alleging I had bullied Roach and broken the law appeared from ‘human rights lawyer’ ‘Maria James’.
— Jeremy Duns (@jeremyduns) September 14, 2012
He couldn’t resist taking these claims elsewhere, and argued all the same points as ‘Maria’ here, in similar terms: namelesshorror.com/post/310464989…
— Jeremy Duns (@jeremyduns) September 14, 2012
The conversation on NamelessHorror opens with coventrian asking (a week ago):
How do you feel about Jeremy Duns recording phone calls without the other person’s knowledge or permission and then publishing them on the Internet. This is unlawful under RIPA. Does this count as a sleazy tactic?
and concludes, when Jeremy Duns joins the discussion, with the statement:
So you made an ‘aggressive’ phone call to a fellow writer where you falsely accused him of being someone else, all the time taping it without his knowledge or approval. You then made the contents – or a selective version of the same – available to the whole Internet. Not illegal perhaps – just unlawful.What a nice guy you are.Subsequently your blogpost was used wholesale by Nick Cohen for an article in a national newspaper without forewarning given to, or approval by Steve Roach.If I were Roach – and no I’m not, then I might be feeling rather bullied and not just by Stephen Leather – and I’m not him either.
ps Don’t ask for my phone number. I like my pricvacy.
He did that under the name ‘Coventrian’ and accused me several times of unlawful behaviour. I’ve just proven he is Coventrian.
— Jeremy Duns (@jeremyduns) September 14, 2012
But when I asked him about an hour ago on Twitter if he had ever accused me of unlawful behaviour, he lied and denied it.
— Jeremy Duns (@jeremyduns) September 14, 2012
So there we go: retired lecturer @ilkleychess has impersonated a lawyer to smear me because he disliked my post about Glenn Greenwald.
— Jeremy Duns (@jeremyduns) September 14, 2012
But of course there are wider points. Should I never write about journalism, or politics, in case someone smears me? What can I write about?
— Jeremy Duns (@jeremyduns) September 14, 2012
I’ve written hundreds of thousands of words about the Cold War, but that in itself can be contentious. We can’t all ‘watch what we write’
— Jeremy Duns (@jeremyduns) September 14, 2012
in case retired lecturers feel like smearing us publicly. So what’s the solution? What can Google, Twitter, Amazon et al do – or is it OK?
— Jeremy Duns (@jeremyduns) September 14, 2012
Over to you, Question Time audience.
![]()
— Jeremy Duns (@jeremyduns) September 14, 2012
@jeremyduns What I can’t get is how anyone who’s seen your record can think, “You know who I’m going to abuse via a sockpuppet? Jeremy Duns”
— Neuroskeptic (@Neuro_Skeptic) September 14, 2012
@jeremyduns Hi, I had to go to lunch too. I have nothing to do with the two blogs. If I could take them down I would. I can’t.
— Gerard Killoran (@IlkleyChess) September 14, 2012
@ilkleychess Oh really? But you just lied to me and said you had never accused me of unlawful behaviour online. Why?
— Jeremy Duns (@jeremyduns) September 14, 2012
@ilkleychess Come on, then. You’re back from lunch now. Do you stil deny that you have repeatedly accused me of unlawful behaviour?
— Jeremy Duns (@jeremyduns) September 14, 2012
@objectiviser Are you saying there may be two people calling themselves that online who like chess, hate David Aaronovitch, etc?
— Jeremy Duns (@jeremyduns) September 14, 2012
For what it’s worth, @ilkleychess refuses to admit he’s accused me of unlawful behaviour, despite proof, and denies setting up the blogs.
— Jeremy Duns (@jeremyduns) September 14, 2012
@ilkleychess Which, like the blogs, is with Blogger. And you also have this Blogger account: blogger.com/profile/011817…
— Jeremy Duns (@jeremyduns) September 14, 2012
For what it’s worth, Jeremy Duns has proven beyond my doubt that IlkleyChess, Gerard Killoran, and Coventrian are all the same person.
It is clear that (at least) “Coventrian” has read the “Maria James” blog. (It seems unlikely that anyone would come up with that spontaneously.) It’s odd, to say the least, that having apparently read and believed the “MJ” theory that it was unlawful for Duns to tape a phonecall, he did not then link back to it when he was being told this was nonsense on NamelessHorror a week ago. “See, a ‘human rights lawyer’ says…”
@ilkleychess Your obsession is politics. Assange, Iraq. And yet you posted about Steve Roach three days before the blog went up. Come on.
— Jeremy Duns (@jeremyduns) September 14, 2012
Supporting the right to pseudonymity on the Internet does not, of course mean supporting the right of a complete arsehole to be assholic on the Internet.
Currently in awe of @jeremyduns who seems to have this ‘figuring out who anonymous jackasses are’ thing perfected to a fine art.
— Suw(@Suw) September 14, 2012

You all seem to be forgetting that Duns was threatening to post the recorded when he was accusing Roach of being bullied even though Roach insisted he wasn’t.
‘Recorded it for accuracy’ is a fallacy.
I’d ask if now he has reported is there any need to keep the tape? He’s reported it.
You all seem to be forgetting that Duns was threatening to post the recorded when he was accusing Roach of being bullied even though Roach insisted he wasn’t.
If that’s so, I’m sure you can cite the tweet or blogpost in which you recall Duns made that threat.
‘Recorded it for accuracy’ is a fallacy.
I think you may not understand what the word “fallacy” means.
I’d ask if now he has reported is there any need to keep the tape? He’s reported it.
Given how many people have accused Duns of lying about this, I’d say there’s every reason to keep the recording in order to prove – should that be necessary – that he isn’t.
And the ‘Proof’ is laughable.
I could have copied what a few people said online about Duns and started a blog easily.
There is nothing that would stand up in court that says this guy did it. But Dun’s thinks there can only be one person that says certain things. (Not in Duns favor anyway, all he’s done is slander someone else now)
He is mad, literally.
There is nothing that would stand up in court that says this guy did it.
I agree with you there. Duns had definitely proved that Coventrian was saying stuff very similiar to what “Maria or Emily James” was saying – without citing that silly blog – and definitely shown that Coventrian, Gerard Killoran, and IlkleyChess are one and the same person. That would not by itself hold up in court – though should this come to be a criminal matter, police investigation of implicated computers could establish legally any link that existed.
If you recall, it was enormously difficult to prove definitely that David Rose and Johann Hari were one and the same person, until Hari made a mistake with metadata which forced Hari to admit to his employers and the public what he’d been doing.
There is nothing that would stand up in court that says this guy did it. But Dun’s thinks there can only be one person that says certain things. (Not in Duns favor anyway, all he’s done is slander someone else now)
I doubt very much if Jeremy Duns has been foolish enough – unlike whoever wrote the “Maria or Emily James” blog – to say anything legally actionable. Your animosity towards him (and your IP address) is noted.
He is mad, literally.
I think you may not understand what the word “literally” means.