Thread 2. To feel disappointed after reading this in The Observer about the author and her husband from The Salt Path book and film?

[AWanderingFool]

Thread Two for The Salt Path and Raynor Winn/Sally Walker/Sally Winn discussions.

Thread One is here: www.mumsnet.com/talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/5368194-to-feel-disappointed-after-reading-this-in-the-observer-about-the-author-and-her-husband-from-the-salt-path-book-and-film?

Regarding them asking for free tea and scones in a cafe.

Many years ago I worked in a cafe and there really are people who try this on with absolutely nonsense of embarrassment.

I remember a man ordering an ice cream and then asking if he could have it for free. Um, no.

They walk amongst us.

A website called Civil Society talks about the charity cutting ties with them.

https://www.civilsociety.co.uk/news/health-charity-cuts-ties-with-salt-path-author-over-observer-allegations.html

@TwistAndSpout I guess this thread has naturally attracted those who saw beyond the hype and feel vindicated

It’s not strange at all. He entered into a legally binding loan with the walkers. That is an asset

when he went bust his creditors took all his assets to try and recoup their losses

they don’t seem to have ever repaid him a penny so he was a fool to make the loan but the fact it was handed to someone else is not unusual

Not sure why you think that is strange. Debts owed to you are an asset. If you can't afford to pay your debts, the people you owe money to are entitled to go after all your assets (actually, not quite all - they can't take the tools of your trade, for example - but near enough).

Only if it is a limited company, and even then, only if there is no negligence. He may, for example, have lent then money from company accounts rather than personal accounts), or he may not have had a limited company anyway (sole traders are not that uncommon). There's no evidence there were investors, only that there was debt.

My DH said the same thing. He has done multiple multi day and multi week long distance walks in the UK and doubted their lack of preparation and equipment would suffice
His actual first question was "did they have a Hilleberg?" 😂
Obviously you don't need Everest-ready tents but definitely more than what they had.

I think it’s because the Guardian and the Observer are sister papers (the Observer is just the name given to the Guardian edition that comes out on Sundays) and both owned by the same people (Tortoise Media).

The Guardian did love the Winns/Walkers though - I feel sad for them. I remember favouriting a GDN article I read a few months ago where they interviewed GA, JI and the Winns/Walkers to promote the film coming out. It was a lovely article, and a few people on here have mentioned it.

I’m now tempted to read it haha. I should - it’s been sitting on my bookshelf for long enough!

The Guardian is not owned by Tortoise Media. They sold the Observer to Tortoise last year, prompting, I believe the first ever industrial action by Guardian staff.

The band who RW was due to continue performing with on the Saltlines gig tour has shared this post:

https://www.facebook.com/peterknights.gigspanner/posts/pfbid0ytimCPJucSL6B7CSJSafJwHA55fivC6o6wVprgL8CWFNr2WYt5rDUrx2LhkCQNmml

They start with a quote from RW('s team):

'"Recent press coverage concerning Raynor Winn is highly misleading. As a result, Raynor is taking legal advice and will not be making any further comment at this time.
She is deeply sorry to let down those who were planning to attend the Saltlines tour, but while this process is ongoing, she will be unable to take part. We appreciate your understanding and support during this time" Raynor Winn's Team.'

And add their own statement:

'Gigspanner Big Band's statement...
It is very important to the Gigspanner Big Band that their performances go ahead as planned, and they instead intend to present their recently released, highly acclaimed, album Turnstone.
We are currently in discussions with all of the venues on the upcoming tour to move forward with this plan, and we will keep you updated. It is highly time consuming, and your patience while we go through this process is requested and valued.
If you have booked a ticket at one of these venues, the Theatre in question will contact you with further information as plans are confirmed.
Thank you. Gigspanner Big Band.'

The comments have now been turned off. The post doesn't really commit them to either side, but in the comments the band seems to support the rubbishing of the article, by responding to a comment defending the quality of The Observer's journalism that it was taken over by Tortoise Media.

The area where they live is very similar in character and geography to Cornwall, so there's a strong chance this book would have been known there, although not everyone is an avid reader (in English or Welsh).

I haven't read the book but my understanding is that it specifically says that they invested in Cooper's company. It does not say that Cooper lent them money. It says that they invested, but Cooper's company failed resulting in Cooper taking them to court and them losing their house. If there really was a company and they invested in it, they would have lost their money if the company went under but there would have been no further liability. It would make more sense if there was no company and they entered into an agreement giving them a share of the profits but also making them liable for the losses, but that does not appear to be what the book says according to things I have read. Happy to be corrected if anyone has read the book and it says something different.

Oops - sorry! I can see the Guardian is still owned by the Guardian Media Group and it’s just the Observer owned by Tortoise. Sorry - I think I got confused because on the Guardian website they have banners over some articles to clarify they were published before Tortoise Media bought the Observer, but I thought they’d also bought the Guardian.

So Gigspinner do believe her, then, and are doubling down.

I suppose when you've been involved so closely it must be very hard to see a person differently.

From the Observer story there was no business or company at all, so it’s difficult to make sense of their claim, but I can’t think of a situation where you invest in a company and lose your house.

Perhaps if they borrowed to invest in the company, but then how would the friend be able to force them to sell their house?

Maybe if you get paid to guarantee a loan? But that is lending, not investing.

I wonder whether The Guardian has their own research piece yet to come out, rather than one that references The Observer's? This may be where the "more to come" will be, so they're staying quiet until their legal team have checked it over? Just my thought, no actual info here.

I wonder if he knew about the large mortgage (£230 000 wasn't it) I'd have been very put off loaning them another £100K if aware of that, or without some sort of formal payment plan and as otheres have said, what were they planning to pay with?

Yup. And you'd think Moth would like all the bright lights in the studio!

Doesn’t information about other charges have to be shared? Wouldn’t the mortgage company have to give permission for a second charge?

I haven't read the book either, but from the Observer account:
"Months later, James’s business went bust and in 2010 his loan to the Walkers was transferred to two men he owed money to. The men called in the Walkers’ loan and, when they didn’t pay , took them to court in 2012. During the case James filed a witness statement in which he told the court that “the purpose of the loan is clear: it was required to settle a criminal allegation made against Mrs Walker”."

The book says a lot of things that are not true - they were loaned money, secured against their home, to settle the potential criminal charges against them, and a court found that the loan repayment was enforcable.

At no time did they invest in the company. They borrowed money.

No, there was no company. The Observer's version of what happened (borrowed money from a distant relative to repay money she had stolen then losing their house when they failed to repay him) makes sense. What I've seen of the version in the book (investing in a company then the owner of the company takes their house when his business fails) doesn't make sense. Maybe it would make more sense if I had read the book, but I don't intend to do so.

That's the bit that I think is odd. "James" would have been able to see there was a charge on the property from the land registry documents as well.

In fairness, for most people there would be a difference between spontaneously shoplifting six 25p bars of fudge when you're starving, and the conscious, premeditated theft of £64 k from your employer when you aren't.

I agree that you can see a lot of her self-justifying mental processes at work in how she narrates that shoplifting episode, though.

For the previous several pages, she's been remarking pointedly on how former fishing villages now consist entirely of second homes, on the 'trinkets and pasties' of Tintagel and the building work going on in Polzeath, and how she seriously thinks about trying to snare a rabbit, as her father has taught her. The snack hut where she steals the fudge is full of people buying frivolous buckets and sweets for their children, and the money she thinks about repaying after she steals the fudge is needed for the ferry to Padstow, which is a sort of overcrowded Rick Stein-themed Disneyland where tourists tut at their packs and the icecream vendor refuses to refill their water bottles.

The whole episode says 'No one is more in need than us, or more desperate than us, therefore what I do is justified, and those who would condemn us are the kind of nasties who let their dog urinate on our tent or tell us we're disgusting for wild camping.'

Which I suspect is very much how her mental processes work in general.

https://www.theguardian.com/info/2025/apr/07/observer-faqs?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
Observer and Guardian are no longer in the same stable