Thread 9: To feel disappointed after reading this in The Observer about the author and her husband from The Salt Path book and film?

[DisappointedReader]

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?

Thread 8 www.mumsnet.com/talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/5375023-thread-8-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 visitors who seem to have their own agenda and seek to derail. Avoid @'ing and quoting them as this will only encourage them back to the threads.

We have done amazingly well together - in the main that is, not mentioning any names but you know who you are! - for eight 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.

I notice the book is still getting some 5 star reviews, which is the reviewers' prerogative. This one stood out though. "The court of public opinion" is precisely what RW should face. It's not as if any of this would ever go to a criminal court and I don't think anyone is seeking that. RW has a reputation that is glaringly in the spotlight, so public discourse and deciding where the truth falls is only fair game.

@AldoGordoabsolutely.

I’m on holiday so not been keeping up as much as I was but I saw an advert for the film on a tram yesterday in Switzerland and thought of these threads 😁

Placemarking

Hello, on holiday so place marking but excellent work to almost all contributors through thread 8. I'm currently reading TSP for the first time (second hand copy bought on Amazon)! So I can be sceptical first time reader correspondent.

Only when the courtiers are balanced, fair and objective in their analysis.

On the health issues, I wonder if the following statement from the Observer’s rebuttal of the RW rebuttal has been considered? The general consensus on here appears to be that the Winn-Walkers are guilty of pushing a potential remedy onto CBD sufferers. Here’s another view. There seems to a quite a lot of deference to the views of medical consultants, so I guess this will be treated in the same way?

“In one of Winn’s medical letters , dated 2025, one doctor praised the couple for raising awareness of CBD. “I was very pleased to hear from [the couple] that whenever they discuss [CBD] they emphasise the benefit of activities, without indicating that the clinical outcome will be as favourable as has been the case for Mr Walker himself,” he wrote.”

That sounds to me like a consultant making quite a strong point to the couple about how they should present the condition

All in all, it is a very odd consultants letter though

Tbf, a lot of the discussion has been around the embezzlement.

The health issue is more nuanced because CBD was mentioned by medics, although of course over time it’s become clear that many neurological disorders are extremely difficult to label, and that Moth’s condition isn’t extreme and indeed that a prognosis of just a few years left of life would have been wildly inaccurate.

anyways. For me, it’s far less about the health issue. More about the dishonesty of someone who steals tens of thousands of pounds from their employer, causing extreme distress and hardship to their family.

We interpret to suit our narrative, for sure.

Well it’s not difficult to interpret why RW turned down 6 opportunities to speak with the Observer over recent months. Nor why she refused to answer direct questions from them. Nor why anyone would take out a 100k loan, with the risk of losing their home if not repaid, to pay off money owed through theft if they believed they were innocent.

I think that, given the timing of that letter, this statement is connected to the film. It may well be the result of the production company doing more due diligence than Penguin, and possibly even asking some specific questions about what they can and cannot say. At least that's my guess.

Me too, @gattocattivo. I’m not downplaying the feelings of those who were inspired by the apparent success of walking on a health condition, or anything else they took from the book, but it’s the thievery and grifting that bothers me the most about all of this.

i also think that the loss of reputation will be the thing that stings the most for Raymoth. No more appearances at literary festivals with people hanging on your every word, no more film premieres, no more uncritical interviews. Everyone knowing things aren’t quite as you presented them.

Which it has been. Read all the threads. Sigh.

They should be called fly campers, not wild campers.

I just want to note that 3 times on the last thread references were made to discussion possibly causing the subjects of discussion to harm themselves. It is against the Samaritans guidelines to do so, and is also IMHO quite an unpleasant attempt to emotionally manipulate and shut down debate.

Posters are not wishing anyone to harm themselves. I haven't seen a post in 8 full threads even suggesting that. So please could posters refrain from weaponising self harm in an attempt to stifle debate, however well meaning the attempt may be. People in the public eye will be commented on, and people who promote themselves as unflinchingly honest will draw comment when it turns out that they probably haven't been so honest after all.

I have. And it’s not.

Your opinion, which seems stacked against the consensus. That much is clear.

I posted this towards the end of the last thread-
Sorry to interrupt, but looking at the Observer online (I’m in NZ so might be an international version?) under ‘the Salt Path Controversy’ podcast, it mentions a live news meeting on the 29th July. Does that suggest anything to anyone?
I am loving these threads, reminds me of Mumsnet of old (clever, articulate, funny, and actually reading and responding to the other posts)

Thank you for this. As the OP I was just coming on to say something very similar. You have said it very well.

This is very important indeed and I would ask all posters to take note as we start this new thread.

@Nameychangington very well said.

As you say, weaponising self harm is a dangerous and manipulative way to sweep uncomfortable truths under the carpet. No one has wished ill harm on RW. I’ve no doubt all this debacle is very uncomfortable for RW, but it’s self inflicted.

I’m wondering when the Observer first approached SW and when she first knew something was afoot to doubt her story.
In know a couple of people who met her, both at a local Q&A screening of the film. Both reported her as being ‘’guarded”. If SW knew at that point, sitting on stage being questioned must have been intolerable

You are not interrupting at all @Bauds1 . You are very welcome to join us. Thanks for your post.

This information is in CH's article on 13th July.

Certainly, but there does seem to be a proven pattern of lying and deception here that the Observer is keen to get to the bottom of (as much as that’s possible).

There’s been people arguing ‘be kind’ since thread 1 tbf. It adds nowt to the discussion and is beyond tedious. Really it should be ‘be nice’ rather than ‘be kind’ because it would be kinder for someone to have said to this couple that saying this story is truthful could come back and bite them on the bum.