Presumably Jim Perrin was paid by The Sunday Telegraph for his recent full-page article — in Glorious Technicolor — on the topical issue of Sherpas versus mountaineers, 05/05/2113, and we wonder if they were aware that by publishing it verbatim they had allowed him the opportunity to engineer and incorporate into the article what surely might be a libellous remark — certainly a sly dig — yet another in what we know to be a long list of these towards people against whom Jim Perrin appears to harbour a grudge or bear resentment.
He does not accuse the Sherpas, nor indeed the other main subjects in the article, of being ‘non-performers’ but with his considerable ‘skill’ in these matters — and we have experienced his distasteful ways at first hand, note his virtually libellous comments about us in West and in The Guardian, (writing as ‘Melangell’, a long-used alias) — he has managed to disparage in his carefully crafted use of that phrase the authors of ‘Mountains of the Mind’, ‘The Mystery of Mallory and Irvine’ and ‘Into the Silence’: it is quite obvious what Jim Perrin has done, and shows him to be without qualm or conscience. Continue reading
In a ‘Daily Telegraph’ article by Andrew Hough, 27/12/12, there was further news of the author, R.J. Ellory, and his Wikipedia entries. As explained in an earlier posting we believe that the ‘Guardian’ country diarist for Wales, Jim Perrin, has common ground with R.J. Ellory: both are proved to have a propensity for ‘imaginative’ writing. Ref: ‘Jim Perrin Writes an Anonymous Letter.’
Recently we have noticed that since the first entry about Jim Perrin on Wikipedia, 22/10/05, there have been numerous amendments. (Wikipedia, ‘view history’).
Whilst we understand that anyone may add to an entry if the details added are correct, is it possible that the majority of these were posted either by Jim Perrin or at his behest; or by his inducement? Sometimes changes were made in quick succession, even within minutes.
It is noteworthy that Jim Perrin is ‘advertised’ as a writer of obituaries and an example is actually given: we cannot help but feel that this advertisement indicates a singular lack of taste (if not an infringement of Wikipedia rules) although it is revealing that it should be thought so worthy of pride and recognition; and of self-promotion. Continue reading
In a note concerning Jim Perrin’s academic history we have read that he was ‘a graduate in English from Bangor University.’ This is true — he was awarded a 2:1 — and it further stated that he was ‘a PhD student’. Although the implication was that he had remained at Bangor, it was not the truth — actually he left.
However, nowhere has been seen any further reference to Jim Perrin having finally obtained his doctorate. He has certainly implied that he did (on the back of one of his books is the information that he used material found in the course of his PhD research); and he has deliberately encouraged others to believe it — the Scottish author David Craig for one, whom we quoted in the ‘Banff blog’.
Jim Perrin, by first ‘implying’ — as we think he did — and later allowing his ‘implication’ to become embedded as ‘a fact’ (he was, after all, featured in 2006 as ‘Dr. Jim Perrin’ on the Banff site with a photograph and details of his location), has — in our opinion — clearly demonstrated with this example alone what we believe to be his deceit: his ‘modus operandi’. Continue reading