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) − instead of favouring his friend and climbing partner by denying that request, we − in all probability − would never have created the blog which has, by now, 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 with him.

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 Worst 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; but, 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’; this must have considerably shocked Jim Perrin as 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 blog, which we stated from the outset was ‘to put the record straight’, has become, with the help of so many new supporters, 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 blog ‘Our account of Jac’s illness … part four’.

We can say these things now, and in the course of our blog as a whole, because we have incontestable evidence of that which we describe.

And, we thank Roger Alton: if he had not refused to print our response in 2005 − through a surely misplaced ‘allegiance’ − the strong possibility is, as we were then such technophobes, that we would not, later, have become aware of the ‘Guardian’ site (with ‘Melangell’s (J.P?) spurious outpourings) and would never therefore have dreamed of writing a blog of our own.

We thank him, 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 blog, four years later), was not in our view, well-judged.

Inadvertently, it would seem, Roger Alton has done us the greater favour as he was, by his refusal, instrumental in helping us to show through our blog −to put on record − aspects of the real Jim Perrin which hitherto that author has managed to keep well-hidden and free from scrutiny.