Part three of ‘Jim Perrin’s Wikipedia page’

R J Ellory has said that he ‘felt confused about [Wikipedia’s] policy’ and he pointed out that in his entry ‘the representation of his life to the wider world was not biased, inappropriate, incorrect or false.’

Neither, it follows, was the information that the author, Jim Perrin, had five other children. There could have been no privacy issue, nor was it ‘inappropriate’, as he himself had already recorded just one of his children: one  of his sons, who as it happened was also a talented climber…  or had sanctioned that entry. Posted on 24/1/2011 it remained for nearly two years; there is little likelihood that Jim Perrin would have been unaware, as he is frequently tinkering with his Wikipedia page, yet all details of this eldest son along with the mention, which later had been added, of the rest of his children (and it may be presumed not posted by himself) were speedily deleted by him on 15/11/2012. Possibly he felt that the extra information about those other children (that is, each by a different mother) might reflect unfavourably on his character — on his carefully constructed image — and his way around the ‘difficulty’ was to remove completely that part of the entry which dealt with all his children; to remove them from the record. If one reads Jim Perrin’s Wikipedia page and visits ‘view history’ all the many changes can be seen.

But Wikipedia is an encyclopaedic site with much biographical material; and they particularly invite the contribution of further details, bearing in mind these must be truthful and that attention is paid to their guide-lines. ‘You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.’

Indisputably, part of Jim Perrin’s biography, as by now is becoming well-known, is that he has fathered at least six children, each with a different mother although, clearly, he would prefer to conceal it having now removed all their details from Wikipedia; that is, six children ‘at least’ about whom, so far, we have been given the proof. (Later note: now discovered to be seven, none having the same mother.)

    *      *      *      *      *

The details above are known to be true. Whereas, we have only Jim Perrin’s word, which we do not believe, that he was ever ‘earning his living’ as a shepherd in any meaningful sense of that phrase; elsewhere he has written that this was during the period from 1973 to 1977. (Four years working as a shepherd…)  In our view it is a typical example of this author’s aptitude for ‘exaggeration’: on the cover of a recent book he goes a step further, and it is now stated not just that he had ‘worked as a shepherd’ (note his entry in Wikipedia) but that he was a ‘one time WELSH shepherd’ !

And so, it might appear, Jim Perrin perpetuates his own myth…

We think it is a ‘story’; as is his ‘story’ of his Welsh grandfather having been killed in the first World War.  (‘…from the ‘Great War’ in which my father’s father had died.’) He was as English as the other and he died, long after that war was over, in 1945.  (Jim Perrin’s other English grandfather died in 1964.)  Incidentally, they were both born, and lived, and died… in England; as is his ‘story’ of his ‘Welsh descent’, ref. the preceding bracketed note; and as is his much-publicised (until recently) ‘story’ of his own imminent demise from ‘Terminal Lung Cancer.’

As we suggested in an earlier posting that ‘story’ may be presumed  to be one which has by now out-lived its usefulness as it is surely apparent, despite all he has written and told with such certitude to those who believed in him, that Jim Perrin is not dying of cancer (be it of lung or of liver, both of which he has claimed at different times) and his story may be seen for what it was: an exercise in deception; a complete fabrication. A ‘story’ which in our opinion was designed and elaborated upon with exceptional detail and ‘conviction’, to gain pity, support and advancement.

In this he does seem to have been successful as so many of his fans; his followers; his ‘disciples’ almost, evidently have been, in their good faith, comprehensively hoodwinked by him. Indeed, we were told by a judge on one of the book awards panels that although: we had been aware of some unpleasantness attaching to his  private life and we had heard well-founded reports of possible GBH, yet he was given the award not only for his writing but also that because of recent personal tragedies he had won the sympathy vote.      

*      *      *      *      *

And, in conclusion, referring again to his Wikipedia biography, so far from being ‘the shepherd’ (let alone the ‘Welsh shepherd’) which in his entry he is asserted to have been, we believe, with all that is now known for certain about Jim Perrin’s unprincipled ways, that it might  with more accuracy be said of him that He is a Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing…

Jac’s sisters.