Thread 8: To feel disappointed after reading this in The Observer about the author and her husband from The Salt Path book and film?

[DisappointedReader]

Well, this has turned out to be slightly longer than the dozen or so replies I expected when I started the first thread!

The Observer The real Salt Path: how a blockbuster book and film were ...

2nd Observer
https://observer.co.uk/news/national/article/the-salt-path-whats-in-the-book-and-what-the-observer-has-found

3rd Observer
https://observer.co.uk/news/national/article/the-salt-path-the-truth-behind-the-blockbuster-book-video

4th Observer
‘I felt I was being gaslit’ – the landlord who helped Ray...

Thread One ^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?^

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

Thread 3 https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/5369425-thread-3-to-feel-disappointed-after-reading-this-in-the-observer-about-the-author-and-her-husband-from-the-salt-path-book-and-film?

Thread 4 https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/5370609-thread-4-to-feel-disappointed-after-reading-this-in-the-observer-about-the-author-and-her-husband-from-the-salt-path-book-and-film?

Thread 5 Thread 5: To feel disappointed after reading this in The Observer about the author and her husband from The Salt Path book and film? | Mumsnet

Thread 6
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/5372494-thread-6-to-feel-disappointed-after-reading-this-in-the-observer-about-the-author-and-her-
husband-from-the-salt-path-book-and-film?

Thread 7
www.mumsnet.com/talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/5373425-thread-7-to-feel-disappointed-after-reading-this-in-the-observer-about-the-author-and-her-husband-from-the-salt-path-book-and-film?

Raynor Winn/Sally Walker's statement Raynor Winn

New posters welcome. It would be helpful to read at least the four Observer items above before posting.

To all - Please be extremely cautious when it comes to naming or implicating people and addresses not in the public eye or with no direct connection to the story, and around the understandable health speculations, especially where details are unclear or still emerging. Please do not engage with possible visitors who seem to have their own agenda and seek to derail.

We have done amazingly well together - in the main that is, not mentioning any names but you know who you are! - for seven threads so far. I can't be on the threads as much as I'd like so all help with keeping our discussion ticking along in a healthy and civil fashion is very welcome.

No saltiness. Keep to the path. Thank you.

A letter from Outraged In Tunbridge Wells in The Telegraph?

Who was the character who used to ring up Steve Wright?

Mark Kermode and Simon Mayo - Third Discussion Since the Scandal Broke

In their third outing addressing the controversy, Kermode and Mayo recap the known facts and statements nothing new is revealed. They read an email from an Australian neurologist (and fan of theirs) who explains that diagnosis in the early stages of a condition like this is difficult and subjective. The neurologist suggests that Moth may have genuinely believed he had the illness at first, even if that belief was later proven wrong.

Another email they read notes that controversial memoirs are hardly rare so what makes this case different? They conclude by suggesting that publishers will likely become more cautious in the future. Ultimately, though, they finish with the admission that they don’t know where this is heading. Tellingly, in both their tone and framing, they remain firmly on the fence.

Right, v v annoyingly I typed out a whole message translating bits of the BBC Welsh language story on this and it wouldn't let me post.....and now I've lost it, aaargh! So I'll summarise. The Welsh language version is different to the English language version and goes into a lot more detail about the effect on the Hemmings family, particularly Mr H. It's absolutely heartbreaking, describing how he phoned his daughter in tears, and how he went from trusting everyone to trusting no one. His daughter says that the experience broke him. It also states that it was SW alone responsible for sending out all the invoices etc.

So I don't give a rat's bum about 'bringing MN into disrepute'. I have plenty of room on the naughty bench 😁

I once saw a lady on TV who made fudge or some sort of confectionery and sold it from her gate with an honesty box - think it was on Guernsey or somewhere. She had a note on the honesty box which said something like ' if you decide to steal the fudge please know that you are not stealing from me, you are stealing from yourself'. So true. When you sell out on your integrity you are the one that suffers in the end.

Saltier comments from some of their fans...

Good to see the YouTube guy get a mention in those comments. His analysis was excellent.

@TonstantWeader I must say I love your username.

"Tonstant Weader fhew up" if I remember correctly?

What a nuisance! I'd like to read the longer version if ever you can face doing it again. It has happened to me several times recently. Last time I clicked on the back arrow and thankfully my lost post was there.

So I don't give a rat's bum about 'bringing MN into disrepute'. I have plenty of room on the naughty bench 😁
Yes, but can you stand the added torture of the author audio version of TSP on repeat? I'm watching you.

"fwowed up", @Uricon2 but close 😉I love Dorothy Parker and have an equal loathing of whimsy to hers......

But surely when an author signs a contract of factual accuracy (which it’s reported Penguin had with RW as part of their due diligence) then the responsibility lies with the author. Presumably she’s now in breach of contract so Penguin are deciding next steps. I disagree that this all makes Penguin look amateur. There was no evidence until the story broke just days ago that the book wasn’t factual, and RW had signed a contract saying it was.

Yes, "fwowed" of course!

Her review of 'I Am A Camera' ..."Me no Leica" Quite brilliant.

Whatever they have misrepresented though I would hate to end up with a situation where someone harmed themselves because they couldn’t cope with this level of scrutiny and I genuinely mean that - personally unless she has proof to refute the allegations or is prepared to sue I think both she and penguin would be better to jointly issue a statement that they will keep enough for a home and modest income and that all remaining and ongoing earnings would be given to various local health charities in wales and Cornwall and the proposed book would be withdrawn

I'd rather watch a musical about this ongoing thread...

Don't want to speculate prematurely but if this Sunday's Observer article delivers a rabbit punch in the form of conclusive evidence that the 2013 CBD diagnosis was fabricated and the inlaws with the French chateau can provide more 'insights' about SW and TW's implicit suggestion that they are purer than the driven snow, then I suspect it is 'game over' for 'On Winter Hill'.

This apprently could be a "hypothetical" conrtact they may have signed;

Hypothetical Publishing Agreement Clause
Author Warranties and Indemnities

1. Originality and Rights Clearance
2. The Author represents and warrants that the Work is original to the Author and does not infringe upon any copyright, trademark, moral right, privacy right, or other proprietary right of any third party. The Author further confirms that all necessary permissions and clearances for third-party material (including quotes, images, and references) have been obtained and can be supplied to the Publisher upon request.
3. Defamation, Privacy, and Harmful Content
4. The Author shall ensure that the Work contains no material that is defamatory, libellous, obscene, or otherwise unlawful, and that it does not invade the privacy of any individual or entity. The Author agrees to exercise due diligence in the verification of all factual content, particularly regarding identifiable persons, organizations, or locations.
5. Duty to Notify
6. The Author shall immediately notify the Publisher in writing of any claims, disputes, or threats of legal action related to the Work, whether before or after publication, of which the Author becomes aware.
7. Indemnification
8. The Author agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the Publisher, its affiliates, officers, employees, and agents from and against any and all claims, liabilities, losses, damages, costs, and expenses (including reasonable legal fees) arising out of any breach of the warranties above, including but not limited to claims of defamation, invasion of privacy, or copyright infringement.
9. Editorial Cooperation
10. The Author agrees to cooperate with the Publisher in responding to any legal or reputational issues arising in connection with the Work, including making reasonable editorial changes or clarifications requested by the Publisher or its legal counsel, where such changes are necessary to reduce potential legal risk.
11. Moral Responsibility
12. The Author acknowledges the social, cultural, and ethical impact of their work and agrees to act in good faith to avoid misrepresentation or undue harm to subjects and readers, particularly in autobiographical or narrative nonfiction.

I watched the BBC Wales version on iplayer by changing my location in the settings. Slightly longer version of the English one @ 18.46. (Now just have to remember to go back and change back to the Midlands!)

Theatregoers would need to bring sleeping bags, commodes and copious food and drink supplies, it would be that long. Some theatregoers may even need haircuts during the show.

it was reported on the BBC that the contract specifically covered ‘factual accuracy’

Bagsy Emma Stone to play me because we look identical anyway I bloody wish!

Who'd play Simon Armitage? They'd have to have stamina as they'd be on stage more than R&M.

I'm noticing a few @s and quotes creeping back in in a certain direction. I'm not sure that this summoning up is such a good idea.

I'm sure a good lawyer could smooth that over it is, after all, my subjective truth. And surely the publisher has a duty of care to their authors, doesn't it? Besides, is a sin of omission really the same as a lie?

But the Cooper story...it really never made sense to me. That's where I struggled to engage with the story, but I went along with it just to read the book. A reader can't ask questions (that can be answered) but a publisher can.

Like "so you invested in a friend's company, but it failed and then you owed money and lost your house because you couldn't prove you didn't owe money? How did that work?"

As we know, RW's answer makes even less sense than what is in the book, even putting the Hemmings stuff aside.

"So they owed you money, but to get that money they took a loan from their failed company to pay you at 18% interest, but you agreed your house could be used as collateral on that loan from the failed company? You essentially remortgaged your house to get back money from a failed company? How did that work?" ...

@DisappointedReader leave it with me and I'll be back with a translation of the relevant bits as soon as I can. It looks as though there's an extra bit in the middle where they've more detail from the daughter, so I'll post that in due course. Article is here for anyone who speaks Welsh: www.bbc.co.uk/cymrufyw/erthyglau/c14e10p7k8go