Monthly Archives: May 2012

Jim Perrin loses a court case? (Well, no! The matter was settled ‘OUT of court’!)

In the 1990s Jim Perrin libelled a fellow climber (Jim Curran) so vilely, impugning his climbing credentials, that he was to be sued for it: a date was fixed for the trial.

Spectacularly, further damning evidence was produced against Jim Perrin and an offer was made in settlement — of many tens of thousands of pounds — within only days of that trial. Today the figure is enormous — then it was a fortune — a sum however which ‘luckily’ was covered by the insurers of the magazine that had published the libel of which Jim Perrin was guilty: he would, it seems, have the Luck of the Devil and, as we have written elsewhere, ‘he sailed away Scot-free’.

Nevertheless the details of this case are well known in the climbing community — and to us through close friends in that community: it is a brush with which he has been tarred ever since. He has learned though to be more circumspect in his writing and over the years has developed a unique style which we believe to be — and have described as — ‘Libelling libel-lessly’, ref. our post Jim Perrin writes libellously? and it may be observed that he uses this ‘style’ frequently, and to great malicious effect. Continue reading

TwitterFacebookLinkedInGoogle+

Jim Perrin makes his escape to the hills

Over the years Jim Perrin has fathered at least seven children, each with a different mother, and given the information available to us it is reasonable to assume that the legal and financial responsibilities thus incurred were burdensome — indeed, we are aware, many have not been complied with at all…

To add to his difficulties, in 2003 the mother of one of his children had learned of his latest address — and had informed the Child Support Agency who would have been interested on her behalf. He had lived there only a few months but now was evidently feeling urgent pressure to slip away, as he had done from other addresses, before they caught up with him. In a letter from that house in Llanrhaeadr ym Mochnant, written before the indefensible ‘get rid’ letter of August 18th A cuckoo in the nest?  he had tried to elicit Jac’s sympathy by deceitfully telling her that he ‘wished to leave as [—] knows the address.’ (He had hidden everything from our sister and was simply conning her.) She was the mother of his latest child — still a baby; obviously he had not voluntarily given her the details of his latest property and wished to avoid her — to give her the slip — and any future involvement with the CSA.

Continue reading

TwitterFacebookLinkedInGoogle+