Jim Perrin says on Facebook: ‘I don’t take the Guardian’. That may be, but he reads it, and regularly, and has done so for decades although perhaps it is not ‘delivered’. He was lying directly or Being Economical With the Truth… Certainly, in the time that our sister was involved with him he read it daily. The greater part of his Facebook entries are based on articles published there, and in many cases he lifts entire portions of text to elaborate upon; pontificating to his heart’s content. Very often his messages which are Guardian-based are written with much political opinion and hyperbole, yet ironically he is unable to vote, despite his endless and vociferous dialogues with his Facebook ‘friend’s, because he chooses not to register with the electoral roll (to avoid the CMS). However, he wrote:
‘The only two political parties to which I’ve ever belonged are the Communist Party of Great Britain and Plaid Cymru. The latter will get my vote next time.’ Except, it is known, he could not have voted… Continue reading
We found this recent post, Outdoor Writing: Reviewing the Reviewers on To Hatch a Crow. It is a thoughtful piece which draws attention to what so many have ignored for so long. And to what, in our view, has amounted to harassment of authors who are perceived to be ‘the competition’. Here is a paragraph from the article:
99% of reviewers, I would suggest, are honest and conscientious. They tend to be scrupulously fair and objective and never allow personal feelings about an author to cloud their judgement. However, that’s not to say that there are not some bad apples in the barrel. One of our best known climbing writers does a good line in rubbishing authors he sees as rivals by writing one and two star reviews on Amazon under a series of pretty transparent pseudonyms. Rather amusingly, he always gives his own books five star glowing reviews.
Jim Perrin does lead a merry dance through the personal fiefdom (as he seems to regard it) that is the Internet, and we are most grateful that someone else can help us analyse his online activities more deeply than we are able to do. One of our perceptive well-wishers has an interest in the recently described condition M.O.P.D., and has made a brief study of it; and as a follower of our site he has not failed to pick up on our accusations that Jim Perrin has written under pseudonyms. He too has recognized the patterns which he considers point to this likelihood. Very kindly he has sent us this contribution.
‘Let me prefix the following by saying that the lawyers insist on the term ‘I (or we) believe’ being coupled with every assertion regarding Jim Perrin for which hard proof is not provided. In the present matter such proof is not easy to come by — but it certainly exists and could be assembled with (and by some parties of my acquaintance without) the co-operation of certain website operators, internet service providers, and email services; but really, need I bother? Continue reading