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
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.