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?

In general it does. You have six years to commence court proceedings to recover a civil debt. If you don't initiate proceedings within that time then tough luck. In England, Wales or Northern Ireland debts are statute barred after six years whereas in Scotland it's five years. The debt remains it's just that you cannot use the courts to recover the money.

@Wellwater, what’s thd novel? It’s bugging me. I’ve read one where Moth is the name of the son and short for Timothy but I can’t think what it was.

The version in the book makes zero sense at all, it was such an implausible explanation I can't believe noone looked into this sooner

I hated that book anyway for the ridiculous inbuilt Costa sticker that was plastered on it, concealing that lovely art work - I realise that’s probably a publisher decision but still.

According to the book they were, by no fault of their own, homeless and living on £48 per week. She described a couple of instances of not paying for campsites when they were unable to find somewhere to wild camp. And I recall one instance of her stealing a few chocolate bars from a shop and feeling burning shame, and fear that she was going to get caught. I could completely square that in my mind. It's entirely different to stealing tens of thousands from an employer, and not even in the same universe as faking a terminal illness (if indeed they have - I'm keeping an open mind until we hear more on that).

It does seem implausible, doesn’t it. It comes across that way in the film too. I wonder if Chloe Hadjimatheou (the journalist who broke this story) or a colleague of hers started having doubts a while back, when the book was first published, but it’s taken until now for them to be able to prove their suspicions.

Someone said - either here or on Bluesky - that she was contacted by someone who knew the true story.

That's what I'm wondering. If someone is hard nosed enought to ask for 18% interest (and I'm not blaming him) you'd think he would have wanted to see a few documents and check out the whole situation. It wasn't a tenner til payday!

Also not sure how the £34K (unless she had already paid back £9K in which case its £43K)) on top of the £64K she stole was for either. Would legal costs /the cost of the NDAs really have eaten that up?

But how would you challenge the "facts" if you did not know they connection between the author of the book(s) and the Walkers? Searching court records on the off chance that you found a case that might fit the facts but with people of an entirely different name... I assume nobody knew the names that they previously went by.

Somebody, somewhere, at some time, told the journalist their real names...

Most people if forced to live on £48 a week would get a job rather than stealing and going on a camping holiday so I wouldn’t say completely “by no fault of their own”.

It doesn't make any more sense in the book, no.

The book narrative is, basically, trusting Moth keeps in touch with an old childhood friend, 'Cooper', who now moves in high-flying circles, and trusts him enough to invest a 'substantial sum' in his business, which then fails, leaving considerable debt.

Cooper then starts to 'suggest' that Moth and Ray are liable to pay towards the debt, but Moth is initially more upset by the loss of the friendship and thinks they can work it out between them. Until a court summons arrives, they run out of money for a lawyer and have to represent themselves, blaming the government for legal aid reforms. Plucky underdogs being outmanoeuvred by clever barristers.

They stall until a claim is made against their farm for payment of the debt and after ten court appearances, they think they have finally found a 'magic piece of paper' that proves that their interpretation of the claim (that they're not liable for Cooper's debts) is correct, but the judge rules it as inadmissible as lodged too late, finds against them and refuses an appeal.

And as Raynor is waiting for the judge to hand down his judgement, it's the first time she registers that Moth looks seriously ill. And afterwards Moth, who is clearly a saint, goes to shake hands with the opposing barrister. And the next day gets his terminal diagnosis.

It's an effective piece of writing in establishing them as plucky underdogs worn down by the injustice of the system and a horrible illness.

Yes, I'm the same.

It seemed like that. Most of the people commenting were saying the band had made the right decision (to pivot to a set without RW). But from the post it looks like whether the gigs new lineup will go ahead at all will be approved by venues on a case-by-case basis.

There must be some people who bought their ticket because of the book/film association, and even though from all accounts it sounds like it'll be a better quality gig now, they might want, and should be given the option of, a refund.

The Tortoise takeover also helps make sense of the timing. Few papers have the resources or inclination to do much investigative journalism these days and if they do, it'd tend to be on harder news rather than culture stories like this. Tortoise have more emphasis on that kind of journalism in their podcasts so that's the kind of direction they'd encourage a journalist to pursue following a lead and give them the time to deliver on it. People could have been making noises to other media outlets in the past but got nowhere. It isn't as simple as you ring a hotline and your story definitely gets in print. These things take time and an editor/publisher who is up for getting all the legals in place to take it on. Other papers could've known and done nothing, focusing on clickbait that needs much less legwork behind the scenes. They waited for someone else to do that and now can pick up their story and run with it.

God, this is making me not want to read the book 😬 what a load of Hollywood-esque baloney!

The Observer says that the loan from the relative plus the mortgage exceeded the value of the house, but that was when they tried running a lottery by which time the debt to their relative had ballooned to over £150k. It may be that the house would have covered both at the time they took the loan. But yes, if he was not aware of the mortgage he didn't do his due diligence properly. If he was, he clearly took a big risk.

They lived in North Wales. It's nothing like Cornwall. You are probably thinking of West Wales.

DOI I grew up in Pembrokeshire.

Could Simon Armitage have a part too? Am I the only one who didn’t know what he looked like as so many in Cornwall thought Moth was him. Having googled I don’t think they look alike enough for more than one person to have said it.

WOW!!! Their nephew has something to say about them!

https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7347531559484243968/

Oh wow.

Aside from anything else, the writing is atrocious.

To think, William Golding was rejected more than a hundred times and Barbara Pym was dropped by her publisher.

Having entirely missed both the book and the film, and sorry if this has been explained and I missed it, but where exactly did this £48 a week come from? I believe I recall back then you had to be actively seeking work to get benefits, and they clearly weren't. And I thought that although some literally homeless people (as in rough sleepers with nowhere to live at all) could get some very limited benefits, you had to sign on and you had to sign on in the same place - I am sure that that was what I was told by people who were rough sleepers. Those who were "tramps" (no judgement there, just meant literally tramping from place to place) couldn't get benefits on account of the fact that they still needed a c/o address for correspondence etc.

Did Moth impersonate him in St Ives and collect money for reading Beowulf? Or were they separate things? I don't have the book anymore to check.

Having seen Gigspanner with Raynor, as well as Gigspanner without, in my opinion anyone who has a ticket is now in for a better show than they originally signed up for. However I would imagine the venues are obliged to offer refunds in case anyone was specifically going to see her.

Makes sense, thanks.