Should Roger Alton be thanked for favouring Jim Perrin?

Had Roger Alton, in 2005, agreed to our family’s request — as an intellectually honest editor ought to have done (given the circumstances which we explained to him) to respond to the article by Jim Perrin which he had published in his paper The Observer — instead of favouring his friend and climbing partner by denying that request, we — in all probability — would never have created the site which by now has enabled others to access some of the more unpalatable truths about Jim Perrin; and to embolden them to come forward themselves with details of their own experiences.

There can be no doubt that Roger Alton should have allowed our voice to be heard in 2005.  Perhaps our response would have restrained the author when he was writing West and the knowledge that we had expressed our rightful concern might at least have curbed his Worse Excesses.

But no: Jim Perrin has ‘Friends in High Places’, and he went on to write, with apparent impunity, the book which was such a travesty:  it is noteworthy that some of those involved in the ‘progress’ of the book, and they will know who they are — did not think sufficiently well of it to allow it to be (even) long-listed for the ‘Wales Book of the Year’. And as he was somewhat of a ‘golden boy’ in the Welsh literary hierarchy and had very close ‘friendships’ with many in that circle, this must have considerably shocked Jim Perrin; clearly he had felt his ‘trajectory’ was assured — he wrote in one of his letters to our sister: ‘My work is highly thought of and receives much critical acclaim, my star is rising.’

Our posts, which from the outset we stated were ‘to put the record straight’, have become, with the help of those many new supporters who have told us so much, an extraordinary revelation of some of Jim Perrin’s undeniably unpleasant characteristics: of his proved ability to lie; of what do seem to be his pretensions; of what we believe to be his ‘slipperyness’; of his penchant for the use of aliases to hurt others and to puff his own work; and of, when he chooses, a total disregard for the truth: how could a man of any calibre claim to be at his partner’s side as she died, when he was actually miles away?  Ref. our post Our account of Jac’s illness … part four.

We can say these things now, because we have incontestable evidence of that which we describe.

*      *      *      *      *

And we do thank Roger Alton: had he not refused to print our response in 2005 — through a surely misplaced ‘allegiance’ — it is possible, as we were then such technophobes, that we would not have become aware of The Guardian’s comments thread with ‘Melangell’s (JP’s?) spurious and salacious outpourings, and would never have imagined a site of our own.

So it would appear that we do indeed owe Roger Alton our thanks: but the ‘favour’ he granted his friend, Jim Perrin (and for which he was rewarded by the belittling mention in the introduction, quoted in the previous post, four years later), was not in our view, well-judged.

Inadvertently it would seem Roger Alton has done us the greater ‘favour’ as by his refusal to publish our rebuttal we were encouraged to set up jacssisters  and to show through our posts — to put on record — aspects of the real Jim Perrin: aspects which hitherto that author has managed to keep well-hidden and free from scrutiny.

Jac’s sisters.