The law is an unpredictable beast and is not for the faint-hearted.
Jim Curran, in his autobiography, described with remarkable restraint his anxiety as to the outcome of the impending legal case — Right may not always make Might — yet as his professional career could be threatened it was necessary that the case should be undertaken as a safeguard.
His re-telling of that period, considering what was ranged against him — Jim Perrin, it might seem, secure with the protection of his Friends in High Places (and their ‘top’ lawyers; and their insurers… ) and the inevitable legal uncertainties — was not extreme: on the contrary, he wrote in measured terms and, one senses, More in Sorrow than in Anger.
What must he have felt as he had become aware of the shameless attempted assassination of his character, by Jim Perrin? Once his decision to seek redress was decided, what must he have feared when a date for the court hearing had been set?… Continue reading
At last, after years of ignoring Jim Perrin and refusing to rise to the insults and irritations emanating from that quarter, Jim Curran, albeit reluctantly, had sought legal advice. A course of action was decided upon and a barrister retained: a date was fixed for the court.
The author Jim Perrin, by his overweening arrogance and deeply-rooted malice (for as such it may surely be described) was the sole cause of this dispute, yet fortuitously he was upheld by his cronies; the publishers who had printed his libel. They, at first making light of any suggestion of culpability, tried to imply that the remarks which their man had so offensively made were intended as jest, and they offered ridiculously small amounts to Jim Curran, with no apology, thinking he could easily be ‘bought off’. They had, of course, closed ranks around their favoured one and were practising their brinkmanship. Continue reading
After an eleven year hiatus an article was published in Climber and Hillwalker which contained seriously offensive material concerning Jim Curran: the author of this insulting article was Jim Perrin! How strange that he seemed to have set up a vendetta against his former fellow-climber; at the least, to have been busily conducting what could only be described as a smear campaign.
Did he feel guilt (or any remorse, we wonder) about what obviously had been his cavalier handling of that climb in 1979? Perhaps he was aware that although, so far, Jim Curran had not publicly discussed it he might yet write about it, giving his accurate account of what had taken place that day on Mewsford Point: did Jim Perrin — as attack is thought by some to be the best form of defence — decide to write the highly questionable (and as it turned out actually libellous article) to pre-empt any such account?
We mentioned in our earlier posting that Jim Perrin had not, until then, written anything negative about that climb, nor had he ever indicated previously that there had been anything of which to complain… Continue reading