Tag Archives: Misrepresentation of Finances

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 →

Jim Perrin makes his escape to the hills

Over the years Jim Perrin has fathered at least seven children, each with a different mother, and given the information available to us it is reasonable to assume that the legal and financial responsibilities thus incurred were burdensome — indeed, we are aware, many have not been complied with at all…

To add to his difficulties, in 2003 the mother of one of his children had learned of his latest address — and had informed the Child Support Agency who would have been interested on her behalf. He had lived there only a few months but now was evidently feeling urgent pressure to slip away, as he had done from other addresses, before they caught up with him. In a letter from that house in Llanrhaeadr ym Mochnant, written before the indefensible ‘get rid’ letter of August 18th A cuckoo in the nest?  he had tried to elicit Jac’s sympathy by deceitfully telling her that he ‘wished to leave as [—] knows the address.’ (He had hidden everything from our sister and was simply conning her.) She was the mother of his latest child — still a baby; obviously he had not voluntarily given her the details of his latest property and wished to avoid her — to give her the slip — and any future involvement with the CSA.

Continue reading →