Tag Archives: Libel

Multiple Online Personality Disorder

Jim Perrin does lead a merry dance through the personal fiefdom (as he seems to regard it) that is the Internet, and we are most grateful that someone else can help us analyse his online activities more deeply than we are able to do. One of our perceptive well-wishers has an interest in the recently described condition M.O.P.D., and has made a brief study of it; and as a follower of our site he has not failed to pick up on our accusations that Jim Perrin has written under pseudonyms. He too has recognized the patterns which he considers point to this likelihood. Very kindly he has sent us this contribution.

He writes:

Let me prefix the following by saying that the lawyers insist on the term ‘I (or we) believe’ being coupled with every assertion regarding Jim Perrin for which hard proof is not provided. In the present matter such proof is not easy to come by — but it certainly exists and could be assembled with (and by some parties of my acquaintance without) the co-operation of certain website operators, internet service providers, and email services; but really, need I bother? Continue reading


Jim Perrin’s libel-less libel

When the author Jan Morris reviewed West on 25/12/2010 she posed this question: ‘Is it good or bad to be proprioceptive?’ Jim Perrin had written of our sister—with a reference to her former husband which was virtually libellous—and described, with distasteful relish, injuries which he claimed she had received. He said: ‘A previous man in her life had beaten her savagely about the head, and her corrective balance was gone.’ And on page 220, describing an accident, he wrote: ‘She had fallen in the night at the flat where she was staying, had cracked her lumbar vertebra.’ He could not have known this—there was no medical examination. (See Jac’s accident to read his description of another accident which befell her.)

We responded to this review: ‘The point ”proprioceptive” is most pertinent to our sister’s story. Jim Perrin has made cleverly libel-less statements in these passages. We know to whom he refers—as do others also. He knows that we know (as they say) and it is a serious matter which we will be writing about it in a future blog.’ This is the blog… Continue reading


STOP PRESS: Jim Perrin is shortlisted

Yet again Jim Perrin is put forward for a prize – and has been shortlisted; this for the Boardman Tasker Mountain Literature Award, 2013.

It is to his undoubted advantage that those with whom Jim Perrin mixes choose to have very short memories…

In the latest sequence of five postings we have shown quite clearly and with no question of doubt whatsoever, that Jim Perrin has, not only once but twice, been proved guilty BY HIS OWN HAND of dishonesty concerning the judging, in the past, of this most prestigious literary competition.

And to his eternal discredit he also calumnized a fellow climber, both in a letter to the judges and committee and, for good measure, with a libellous article in a climbing magazine some years later.

He and his publishers at the time were obliged to withdraw from a scheduled court-hearing for libel, to retreat in disarray and to pay a small fortune to the plaintiff.

Surely those actions should have put Jim Perrin well beyond the pale? His perfidious nature – as we believe it to be – was, in our opinion, revealed; his on-going lack of integrity is by now well-documented.

That he has since succeeded in brushing these matters under the carpet, as would a disreputable house-maid, should not be allowed in the balance with his authorial ability: dishonesty has no place in that balance.

To hurt the reputations of other climbers and authors; to plant his lies like poisonous seeds in his attempts to control events – these are not the attributes of a worthy man: nor of a man worthy of acclaim.

His behaviour was so dishonest and so deceitful – and yet fortuitously was discovered and uncovered – one cannot help but wonder what other pressure he might over the years have brought to bear…