Tag Archives: Financial Exploitation

Guardian Country Diarist Jim Perrin’s plan fails to materialise

Jac’s children were not convinced (ref. the preceding post) and knowing their mother had wanted only their security they felt unwilling to accept Jim Perrin’s story of her ‘last wish’;  they were well aware their landlord had given Jac his assurance that they would be able to take over the tenancy should the need arise…

They told their ‘Welsh’ aunt about the conversation and she drove over to their house to discuss this  latest development.  She had spoken with Jac at great length in the recent days — as had each of her sisters — and she was able to say with certainty that there could have been no such ‘last wish’. Indeed Jac’s last thoughts had been quite otherwise: they were concerned with how Jim Perrin would treat her children if he did have control over them, and knowing how badly he had treated them she was deeply anxious. Her ‘Welsh’ sister had reassured her as best she could and had faithfully promised her that she would protect them should it become necessary.

For the record:  Jim Perrin lied when he wrote that he was with Jac when she died, nor had he been, for many hours, at her bedside whilst she was alive.  He had left her quite alone, early on the previous evening,  yet afterwards he spoke with two of her sisters in phone calls, telling them that she ‘was much better’, ref. our post Our account of Jac’s illness — part three and, in the period between taking her into hospital in Chester on Wednesday,  gravely ill with her cancer,  he had made time to leave her and to drive to Derbyshire where, he wrote, he stayed with friends. ref. our post Our account of Jac’s illness — part four — before he ‘hurried back to her side’! Continue reading →

Jac refuses to marry Jim Perrin

Jim Perrin had planned to take over our sister’s house. Within months of their meeting he persuaded her that he should live with her — ‘coerced’ is certainly not too strong when one considers his letter of August 18th 2003, ref. our post Jim Perrin – A Cuckoo in the Nest? — and whilst we know that in the first months she was very much under his influence yet the pressure he exerted was not only intense but dishonourable. She was given little time to think before he put his plan into action; he knew that she was still sharing the house with her long-term partner — they had been there for some sixteen years — but for his plan to succeed he needed to ensure the departure, the ‘eviction’ of this substantial impediment…

Although Jim Perrin’s overwhelming necessity was to ‘disappear’ and to escape the recent attentions of the Child Support Agency there was the additional matter of his precarious personal resources. After juggling his mortgage and (we saw the evidence) several overdrafts, credit cards and loan companies, for him to live in our sister’s house would be the perfect solution to many of these difficulties. Financially speaking he was on very  thin ice indeed: never having sufficient funds to pay off Peter after robbing Paul.

He had pressed her (oh how hard he had pressed her) to marry him legally — this , we thought at the time, was because he felt he would then have entitlement to her property. Jac used to tell her ‘Welsh’ sister of his latest attempts: of how he repeatedly asked her to marry him saying that he ‘would not believe she loved him if she refused’ — this was nothing more or less than emotional blackmail — and that his ‘happiness would only be complete if she consented’. But she did not want to marry him, agreeing with her sister’s sentiment, (so frequently expressed during their night-time conversations that it had become an on-going joke between them), which was that in this relationship ‘a ring on your finger would be a ring through your nose!’ Instinctively Jac knew this — which is why she refused to countenance the possibility and consistently refused to give in to his blandishments.

*     *     *     *     *

Continue reading →

Jim Perrin loses a court case? (Well, no! The matter was settled ‘OUT of court’!)

In the 1990s Jim Perrin libelled a fellow climber (Jim Curran) so vilely, impugning his climbing credentials, that he was to be sued for it: a date was fixed for the trial.

Spectacularly, further damning evidence was produced against Jim Perrin and an offer was made in settlement — of many tens of thousands of pounds — within only days of that trial. Today the figure is enormous — then it was a fortune — a sum however which ‘luckily’ was covered by the insurers of the magazine that had published the libel of which Jim Perrin was guilty: he would, it seems, have the Luck of the Devil and, as we have written elsewhere, ‘he sailed away Scot-free’.

Nevertheless the details of this case are well known in the climbing community — and to us through close friends in that community: it is a brush with which he has been tarred ever since. He has learned though to be more circumspect in his writing and over the years has developed a unique style which we believe to be — and have described as — ‘Libelling libel-lessly ref. our post Jim Perrin writes libellously? and it may be observed that he uses this ‘style’ frequently, and to great malicious effect. Continue reading →