Jim Perrin’s dishonest account of his history with our sister included the breath-taking duplicity of his claim that she had been his ‘lover, wife and friend of forty years.’ As an example of this author’s shameless use of implication, this is a tour de force…
His subsequent posturing on the The Guardian, post-publication of his book West, and the removal of several of our comments (we presumed at his instigation) finally led us to realize that the only way forward was to create our own site; one which was as informative as possible — and one in which the truth was told.
It was Jim Perrin, we absolutely believe, yclept ‘Melangell’, who posted on The Guardian thread further lies about Jac as well as offensive comments about her sisters and her family — it was a blatant attempt to discredit us and so obvious. These were in response to our stated disquiet and efforts to check him. His comments are still there — indeed he regularly offers up an opinion under this alias. To read them, and perhaps to understand why we have no doubt at all that it is Jim Perrin with whom we are dealing, they can be found on the thread following Sir Andrew Motion’s review of West — those concerning Jac’s sisters date from July, 2010. (Incidentally, ‘Melangell’ (JP?) registered only on the 19th. of May, 2010, in time to direct the flow of dialogue which followed the review of his book and to put forward his? spurious comments… )
He also, of this we feel certain, posted a very revealing comment on Amazon in the guise of ‘Llywarch’ — during an exchange at the time with Jac’s sisters. We have referred to this in other posts and, we are not surprised, he has now removed it. ‘We have a print-out’.
As we said, we really are certain that it was he who caused some of our comments, (on The Guardian thread mentioned above which followed Sir Andrew Motion’s review, to be removed by the moderator — again we kept print-outs): and we have addressed several of his carefully contrived and deceitful ‘points’ in the course of our posts: Overheard at the Funeral by Melangell and Jim Perrin describes Jac’s Funeral are just two of the headings.
* * * * *
When we set up our site it was to show how seriously misrepresented our sister had been in Jim Perrin’s description of their short relationship: and, for Jac’s sake — as we said at the time — our intention, whenever we were able, was ‘to set the record straight.’
We had then scant knowledge of other aspects of Jim Perrin’s ‘past’ — with the stark exception that he had a reputation in North Wales for being an unpredictable bully, one who had beaten a former wife: and not with a Stick as Thick as His Thumb. Jac was told this by a girl friend who was very concerned for her. (What she said was true and it has now come to light he has gravely mistreated other women in the same manner… ) *
However Jac was disbelieving when her friend told her — Jim Perrin was at that stage on his very best behaviour! and in the presence of two of her sisters she questioned him about it. As he could hardly avoid doing so, he finally admitted it — although he was at pains to explain that it had ‘not been his fault’, and that there had been ‘extenuating circumstances’…
Whilst we had not set out to write our posts in any spirit of revenge, nor was it our wish to be vindictive, we did feel that it was unforgiveable that Jim Perrin had written such detestable lies about Jac when she had died and was ‘defenceless’, and when we knew, without question, that so much of what he had written was the over-ripened fruit of his self-serving imagination: he should not have used our sister so opportunistically — as undoubtedly he did — it was deplorable, and we will set facts against his fiction wherever possible.
We had no idea, knowing nothing of the media or the publishing world, how well-entrenched Jim Perrin had become in general, and in particular, how very cosily ’embedded’ in the literary community in Wales…. or of his long experience of the internet and how skilful seemed to be his mastery of net-working: we felt baulked and blocked and found it heavy-going; somewhat as though we were wading through treacle. But helped and advised by so many who support us, we have Carried On Regardless.
And we now believe that by posting such information as was already known to us, as well as that which since then we have found or have been told by others — by making it available to readers as we have — elements of this author’s character which hitherto he kept hidden, or has presented as truth when he knows he was lying, may now be made public.
* * * * *
Has Jim Perrin, amongst his colleagues and Friends in High Places, escaped any suspicion or detection? Do numbers of them have unwavering faith in him? If so, it is probably the desired result of his capacity to ‘charm’; and of his flattery; and of his ‘compartmentalising’ of relationships and contacts according to his need: and, not forgetting — of course — his ability to write so very prettily…
Rarely will he have allowed any sign of that personality which we have been describing to be discerned by those with whom he has wished to ingratiate himself: if any were aware of our site they may have no recognition of the Jim Perrin of whom we write. (This, of course, is one of the key points of a sociopathic personality — to compartmentalise relationships. We believe that Jim Perrin has this ability.)
But there is no possibility that there are two versions of the truth: Jim Perrin’s ‘truth’ versus that of Jac’s sisters’. We have written about events which may be checked upon, and verified, and which were witnessed; and, because this is so and we have spoken out with such force against him (and he has, we know, tried to prevent us) Jim Perrin perhaps — in his ‘omnipotence’ — not for one moment previously anticipating that he would ever be challenged, or called to account, is now — as we have been told — ‘a disconcerted man.’
There are some, having suffered through their connection with Jim Perrin — and we have proof of his pernicious influence when crossed — who for their own reasons (including fear, as has been explained to us) consider that for the moment Discretion is the Better Part of Valour and of course we sympathise and entirely concur.
Yet many details of this author’s life which he has diligently hidden, are — none the less — being disclosed, albeit sometimes anonymously because of that fear; and other ‘stories’ of his own are now being proved, by research and with the help of well-wishers, to be based on what is a considerable talent for cajolery and deception: we have the evidence to back up these assertions.
* We now know, incontrovertibly, that the report was true. (Worse, if it could be so, there are at least two young women — his wives — as well as others whom he assaulted in that way.) It was violence; brute force; aggression: and committed by one whom our civilized society would surely judge to be a morally weak man and quite beyond the pale. And abuse, whatever its nature, however far in the past, does not go away. Victims are always burdened by its lasting influence upon them, and by their memories.
Some extra notes concerning Jim Perrin’s use of aliases: We notice that Jim Perrin’s latest book, Shipton and Tilman, has received only one review on Amazon (at the time of writing, 09/04/2013) although it has been ‘out’ for over a month. Written at first by ‘Llywarch’, it was deleted and posted again under the name ‘Tim Bartley’. Lengthy and flattering — to the point of sycophancy — it made much of the author’s ‘psychological insight’, and praised his copious footnotes; it went on to explain in detail the workings of his writing processes, (as did ‘Melangell’ (JP?) on The Guardian thread concerning West). Finally, the ‘reviewer’ awarded the book ‘five stars’.
This detail added later. As we said it was posted by ‘Llywarch’ — ‘see all my reviews’ — whom, by now, our readers will be aware, we believe to be Jim Perrin himself: However, spurred on no doubt by our revelations he has now changed all his ‘Llywarch’ reviews to the name ‘Tim Bartley’. Powerful circumstantial evidence of what we have been saying? Google will find him.
PS. Another fulsome review is now posted of Shipton and Tilman on Amazon. Is it only the strangest of coincidences, we ask ourselves, that it is by ‘Mole’? — when this reviewer posted on the same day, 30/03/2013, a five-star review of Snowdon, Jim Perrin’s other recent book: we do think it rather more than ‘coincidence’.
‘Mole’ has posted no other reviews of any book at all, except of these two by Jim Perrin… (Perhaps having read this post, and to confound us, ‘Mole’ posted one more review, 16/08/2013, but apart from those three he has posted no more, as at 12/06/2018.)
PPS. A further thought: John Appleby posted, on ‘To Hatch a Crow’, 06/12/2012, his trenchant article Copyright shenanigins . Subtitled ‘Yeatsian scribbler — Dr. Seamus o Perrin in his cloak of many colours’ it was a rather telling ‘account’ of Jim Perrin’s modus operandi.
Following that hard-hitting piece by John Appleby, ‘Seamus’ (JP?) posted ‘his’ review, of Snowdon, on 15/01/2013, (again, with the ubiquitous five stars). We find the use of the name, straight after John Appleby’s article, to be compelling extra ‘circumstantial evidence’ that it was really written by Jim Perrin, up to his usual tricks. Perhaps he knew Seamus, because the interesting thing is that ‘Seamus’ had at that point reviewed only one item, and briefly, a roll of masking tape but after the review of Snowdon he posted thirty-seven more. Mostly of relatively inconsequential items they were also very brief. Perhaps his name had been ‘borrowed’ by Jim Perrin?
This book review , in our opinion, is typically Perrin-esque: noticeably very lengthy; again praising the footnotes; and explaining the lack of necessity for photographs. We believe this review by ‘Seamus’ is, on so many levels, as alike as other reviews of Jim Perrin’s books which we consider to be spurious — that is, all those by ‘Llywarch’ (transmuted into ‘Tim Bartley’) and now ‘Mole’, that it rewards an in-depth comparison.