We wonder if we are the only ones who suspect Jim Perrin to be using aliases, (ref. our previous posts), and of planting spurious comments on the internet under the security-blanket of anonymity: and, of course, we do have proof that he wrote a wicked ‘anonymous’ letter back in 2005 (ref. our post Jim Perrin Writes an Anonymous Letter). As he was so dishonest in writing that letter we feel there is the strongest possibility that he might have written others.
One of our many contacts has just informed us that there is a long thread on The Guardian. The ‘Melangell’ entries show many of the usual ‘trade-marks’ of the author, Jim Perrin and it is our view that he is posing as a woman — ‘Melangell’ — with an opinion on everything and a comment on everybody and, unless fulsomely praising those whom he wishes — by flattery — to hold close to him and others whom he hopes to impress, writes in a style which is markedly egotistical, ‘know it all’, and frequently downright unpleasant. At least two of these comments were deleted by the moderator.
In our opinion it is more than coincidence: it is the same Melangell who wrote — falsely — about our sister, Jac, (Jacquetta) and her family last year. Those comments remain; we have thoroughly addressed them in our posts; we believe they could only have been written by Jim Perrin (at his most manipulative and malevolent); and other ‘Melangell’ postings can be found both before and since those entries in July 2010. Besides ourselves, authors, politicians and other commentators are routinely denigrated.
An acknowledged nom de plume is of course an acceptable literary convention: an alias is nothing more or less than an attempt to deceive and, by its use, to secretly manipulate — in this case The Guardian website. We have reached our own conclusion that Jim Perrin has been practising this deceipt for many months, if not years, ref. our post Jim Perrin’s Fiefdom.
We know we are not alone in our suspicions, nor are we the only ones to have worked out the stylistic similarities, and we hope that others, after reading ’Melangell’s’ many comments for themselves, rather than assuming them to be genuine, might also make the association — by, as it were, ‘joining up the dots’.
We feel it is very wrong for those in High Places to encourage, by default, this author’s ability to endlessly proclaim his own views, to damage others’ reputations by stealth and to insinuate himself, it might be said, as a piece of grit in an oyster, into the circles he wishes to influence and to profit by.
Thomas Hardy wrote in Desperate Remedies: ‘Nobody else has taken the trouble to prove what does not affect them in the least — that’s the way of the world always’. We feel Thomas Hardy’s words could so well apply to our own efforts — and that his reasoning explains Jim Perrin’s continued acceptance.
Yet we believe many people have been hurt, and will be hurt by Jim Perrin’s ability to manipulate the internet if he is allowed to remain unchallenged — he has had free rein/reign we think for far too long.
As a member of the The Observer team once wrote to us : ‘He can’t be allowed to get away with it’…