Mini-update. "Peter Dukes"

As the story finally hit the internet, I got hit with a BlueSky ban.

This is a follow up to this article: "Peter Dukes" — the secret account for one of China's most famous 'borrowed mouths'“.

Huh, another interesting week.

Friday afternoon, I uploaded a thread to BlueSky, detailing some of the key points of the last article.

It was a good one, if I may say so. A year-long investigation into how I believed one prominent Chinese State Media “borrowed mouth” has used an anonymous account to abuse figures in the China-sphere.

I made sure to coax it with warnings, context. I urged readers “to have restraint, decency and compassion.” No good.

Around 6 hours later, (10am in Seoul, so shortly after the subject woke up), my BlueSky account was suspended.

An email confirmed (irony of ironies) that the block was for “harassment”. Others who shared the story were also hit with censorship. Their posts deleted.

Sam, over at China Digital Times put it better than I could:

Before publishing this story, I’d heard many stories about Tom, so I made sure to be prepared. Some great journalists, researchers, helped me vet the content. And those who’d previously been attacked by him, recounted their brushes.

Their support was invaluable. (Thank you. You know who you are.)

Probably the biggest help, though has been Tom himself. Not just in the article, which is ~90% his words. But since. Here’s the timeline:

Wednesday, posted the article behind a paywall, and later went off to some Christmas drinks.

Thursday, desperately hungover, I watched the fallout. Becomingly increasingly open-mouthed as Tom made foolish mistake, after foolish mistake.

At 2:56am GMT, he messaged me, telling me I was mistaken, that he was reformed. He finished the post with a smiley face.

At 2:58am, two minutes later, he messaged a user who had shared the article, and doxed them. “Hi ———, I've located you and your employer,” he wrote.

Many more had emails/DMs/replies; some friendly, others less so. (Thank you all, who saved them.)

His next move was to create another alias, and spam the Substack comments as “Adam Smithson” who was dubious about the whole thing.

“I don’t think it is his alter-ego,” ‘Adam’ wrote, presumably while twiddling a false moustache.

And then there was ‘Peter Dukes’ himself.

---

Peter Reacts

Before posting, I’d wagered he’d do one of two things. First, panic and shut the account down. This would have been a rational — yet silly — thing to do. Essentially, an admission.

Second, if he was smart, ‘Peter’ would have tweeted as if nothing had happened. Usual patter. His usual few tweets a day. Perhaps one scheduled for the Seoul night-time, throw off the scent.

I was wrong. Peter found a third way. A colossally stupid way. He tweeted — a lot. At least eighteen times. All within Seoul waking hours of 9:34am and 11:23pm.

For me, this meant: data, data, data. I cross-correlated it with his Substack activity as ‘Adam Smithson’, or on BlueSky as Tom. And sure enough, it all tracked perfectly. The accounts were never active at the same time. I could see the breaks he took on one platform, to post on another.

Incredible. Utterly incredible.

By night, I noticed a lot of the threats had been deleted (luckily, archived).

Then, just as I was crawling into bed, Tom sent me a long, deeply, deeply personal message.

By this point, it was 3am UK time and I’d been up for nearly 24 hours. I admit, reading it through exhausted eyes, his broken words nearly swayed me. I began typing out a reply: “Dear Tom, it’s ok…” but I soon fell asleep, mid-message, with my nose on the phone.

Hallelujah.

The next morning, things looked different in the morning light. I read the long message again, clocked how it was full of revelations. And there it was: a buried line where he essentially admitted ‘Peter’ was him. A quid pro quo: if I take down the article, he’d never target those people again.

Most though, among those —near 1500— words, the one thing that struck me were the omissions. Like remorse. Or culpability.

Nothing was his fault. All external, or uncontrollable factors. Plenty of self-pity, sure. And a desperation for all the exposure to go away. But not much thought for anyone other than himself. It angered me.

One thing I haven’t been able to push past, is some of the deeply hurtful things “Peter” has said. Take those targeted at MP Yuan Yang:

“You're a traitor to the Chinese people and to your heritage.”

How fucking dare he. Even now, I’m livid. The first Chinese-born MP, giving her maiden speech— utter history. And he, a white male, sought to rob her of her ancestry.

It’s not just disgusting. Lines like this come very close to infringing UK law on racial hate speech.

That’s not my style. I’m a journalist. Not an activist.

But if any of those ‘Peter’ targeted want help, I’m more than happy to assist with information.

---

How many?!

There was also one other revelation.

In tidying up the article, before pushing it free, I dove into exactly how many opinion columns Tom has written for state media this year. Truth be told, I’d fudged the figure in the first draft — began counting, gave up.

I put it conservatively at, I think, “30+”. Turned out I was wrong. It was more. A lot more.

This year alone, Tom has written over 150 articles for Chinese state backed media. Seeing this, brings his panic into sharper focus.

Tom knows as well as I do that he is utterly disposable. State media would much rather drop him, find another “borrowed mouth”, than shoulder any of his baggage. They’ve done it to him before.

Tom isn’t just protecting his reputation: he’s protecting his cash-cow.

On this, he gains absolutely no sympathy from me. As I finished the original article, “It is up to Chinese media to decide who represents them. I, personally, think they can do better.”

What he writes is not remarkable. It is predictable. He’s developed a cottage industry by repeating back what Beijing wants to hear.

Tom’s sole USP is he is white man (many of those); who went to Oxford (less); and willing to write CPC talking points (*tumbleweeds*).

Here’s a crazy idea though. Since so few actually read these opinion pieces, and their content deviates so little from MoFA or the Central Party School’s output, perhaps just print that instead? That way, Beijing is not exposed to the risks of some washed-up expat’s extracurricular habits.

Or, madder still, hire a Chinese journalist?

---

So what next?

BlueSky may be blocking the link, and I refuse to push it on other platforms, for fear of (unbelievable, I know) duty of care for Tom. Some of the details are sensitive. And the internet can be rabid. I can’t contribute to that.

But the story is doing fine — mainly thanks to you.

Since going free 24 hours ago, views have jumped tenfold from 150 to 1500.

Considering this is practically all just from word-of-mouth, on a brand new Substack — that’s incredible. So, thank you.

My ultimate view is that if Tom wishes to while away his hours, sharing hurtful opinions, that’s his right. If he wants to use intimidations, or cry to moderators to cover his tracks, suppress the truth — that’s also his prerogative.

But those who ‘Peter’ attacked have the right to know who abused them.

Just by reading this, you are helping with that. So, most of all, thank you.

More essays, investigations, and thoughts coming soon. Sign up for free here. Or, to really support my work, show appreciation, until Dec 31 you can sign up for the special rate of just £1 per month. Thank you~