Thread 16: 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's original exposé: The real Salt Path: how a blockbuster book and film were ...

The 14 Observer items currently available on their online 'The real Salt Path' page: The real Salt Path | The Observer

More from The Observer:
‘Hope is extinguished’: CBD patients respond to Salt Path...
The real Salt Path | The Observer (The Slow Newscast)
I will link to two more Observer videos in the first post of this thread.

The Observer YouTube Channel: The Observer UK - YouTube

Raynor Winn/Sally Walker's statement: Raynor Winn

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?^

Threads 2-11: Links all in the OP of Thread 12

Thread 12: www.mumsnet.com/talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/5384574-thread-12-to-feel-disappointed-after-reading-this-in-the-observer-about-the-author-and-her-husband-from-the-salt-path-book-and-film?

Thread 13: www.mumsnet.com/talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/5386458-thread-13-to-feel-disappointed-after-reading-this-in-the-observer-about-the-author-and-her-husband-from-the-salt-path-book-and-film?

Thread 14: www.mumsnet.com/talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/5388981-thread-14-to-feel-disappointed-after-reading-this-in-the-observer-about-the-author-and-her-husband-from-the-salt-path-book-and-film?

New posters joining us in the genuine spirit of our civil discourse welcome. It would be helpful to get the background from at least some of the Observer items above before posting. There are currently a number of interesting items on The Observer website and linked to above.

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. Remember, even Hollywood rabbits attract the odd flea. Please do not engage with visitors who seem to have their own agenda and seek to derail. Avoid @'ing and quoting them as - from experience - this will only encourage them back to the threads. We have done amazingly well together for fifteen very interesting, very serious and very silly threads so far. I can't be here as much as I'd like so all help with keeping our discussion walking along in our usual reasonable and respectful fashion is very welcome.

Yes, it really is Thread 16.

Keep to the path. No saltiness. May the fudge be with you.

Though someone forgot to post the link to thread 16 in the final comment on page 40...sorry, couldn't resist a drive by scolding!

Does " unflinchingly honest "? And what should unflinchingly honest mean? Does it just mean the sea is where they said it was?

Mistakes were made!

Actually, scratch that. I’m going to go in for a full-on mea culpa here - otherwise I fear I may not be allowed back in for Thread 17! I am truly sorry to my fellow thread brethren for my oversight. I would like to apologise profusely to you all.

The main hook for buying BJ's book was that he had been PM.
The main hook for buying The Salt Path was that the couple had become homeless through no fault of their own, and the man was terminally ill...

@Vroomfondleswaistcoat says a lot to me about the public in general

its like when it was brought up a good while ago that Farage had an EU passport and was receiving Russian money to help fund aspects of his lifestyle like homes in Chelsea etc - his supporters just said ‘don’t care’ or was taking money off ordinary people to go on narches etc and then did no such thing leaving them to it .

I seriously think a lot of the public have developed a complete absence of a moral compass over the years and plenty of politicians who didn’t have one either haven’t helped the narrative

Thanks for sharing this. Generally, I thought it was well written and well argued.

I did take issue though with one of his points (copied below) where he writes that Moth’s medical records show he’s been diagnosed with CBS. I don’t think they show that at all! Sorry to wheel this out again - I know we’ve discussed this before!

Winn has made Moth’s medical records public on her website – no doubt an anguishing decision to have to make about a deeply personal and sensitive matter – and they do show that Moth has indeed been diagnosed with CBS.

I agree with this.

We know BJ has a reputation for lying, so I don’t think anyone expected him to tell the truth in his memoir. As you say, I think people read the memoir partly because he’d been PM and held other high political positions and also because he’s a good writer - he’s funny and entertaining, and can tell a good story.

With TSP, however, I’d argue the main selling point was precisely the fact it was marketed as being ‘unflinchingly honest’ and that it described these awful events that had happened to the Winns/Walkers with that level of honesty.

For me, the difference between BJ’s memoir and TSP is the differing USPs of entertainment value v honesty.

Reflecting on this, I think Alexei Navalny’s memoir is a good comparison to TSP in terms of USP, as both have a common hook of incredible events happening to their authors.

For anyone who doesn’t know, Navalny was famous for being an ordinary citizen who stood up against Putin and who was then poisoned on Putin’s orders, imprisoned in Russia and then killed (the circumstances of his death are still unclear).

Navalny wrote a memoir about his life: this covered his life before becoming an opposition figure to Putin and included sections about his poisoning and his imprisonment in Russia (via diary entries and letters he sent from prison).

We know he was poisoned, we know he was imprisoned and we know he died, as we have clear evidence of all of these things. I think all three of those things give his memoir an unflinching honesty which, alongside Navalny’s fame, helped to popularise his memoir. It also helps, of course, that his writing is funny and entertaining. However, I don’t think his memoir would have been so popular if he hadn’t gone through those things I mention here.

The 2025 consultant letter does refer to his "previous diagnosis of CBS" (wherein "previous" means, I think, "made previous to this letter" rather than updates, superceded etc).

I think that's fair enough. It's not the same as CBD, and afawk, no new firm diagnosis has been made to override that of CBS, although suggestions have been made.

Just wondered if we had a criminal law correspondent on this thread....would someone found guilty of embezzlement of ober 60K be likely to face a custodial sentence ?

Just to clarify, my main point here is BJ doesn’t need to be honest in his memoir, but Navalny and the Winn/Walkers do, because they are asking us to believe that they are ordinary people who went through extraordinary circumstances.

We have clear proof that these extraordinary events that Navalny went through are true, but we no longer have this for the Winn/Walkers.

That to me is the issue - the trust that was there between us and the Winn/Walkers is now no longer there, so the reason we had for buying the books no longer exists.

I can’t comment from any kind of legal perspective, but our understanding on these threads so far was that RW would not face criminal charges - as you ordinarily would - because she repaid the Hemmings the money on the condition they would drop any potential charges and sign a non-disclosure agreement (which is what happened). RW was arrested but not charged.

Oh yes, that is very true. Aside from that though, we haven’t seen actual evidence he has been diagnosed with it. I’m not at all trying to turn this into a witch-hunt - I just think I haven’t seen concrete evidence for something that is very key to all of the books and to the ‘Raynor Winn brand’.

I wonder what would have happened had they not been bailed out by a relative / friend....it was a lot of money to borrow and few people in such a position would have had this option.

I've wondered if some of the rest of the 100K was used to pay off (eg) the 4 credit cards Moth apparently knew nothing about and maybe other debts. It seems though according to the lady who eventually bought the Welsh property that they were still being chased for money some considerable time after they'd moved out.

ETA I also wonder what their plan was to repay such a huge loan, or even in fact if they had one.

@Crikeyalmighty I seriously think a lot of the public have developed a complete absence of a moral compass over the years and plenty of politicians who didn’t have one either haven’t helped the narrative

I think it would be very difficult to stay sane if you tried to revolt against the lies we hear every day. From AI, Deepfake, adverts with small print, politicians, newspapers and salespeople we are bombarded with lies, half-truths and ambiguity.

I used to applaud books for being true and accurate because practically anyone can go on the Internet and say anything they want to on any subject - irrespective of them knowing anything about the subject (and you don't have to have a webpage, social media is easy to access). And they can also state opinion as fact (and don't get me started on 'my truth'). I used to think that books were different, they went through a process and other people edited and published them and non-fiction was just that - no fiction. But more and more we see 'creative' and 'memoir' blurring the lines.

However, I do find TSP to be way beyond these blurry lines, as has been mentioned before, it would be easier to say which bits were real as so much of the book seems implausible or incorrect.

I seem to remember reading somewhere that the rest was used for legal fees for the court case where the judge ruled they would lose the house - hence why they borrowed £100k rather than just the amount that was stolen.

Or was it used to pay the London lawyers?

The WalkerWinns claimed that they had settled all their debts, but CH said that the gentleman she spoke to who had bought the original debt claimed not to have been paid. If this is the case, I wonder if the WalkerWinns are of the opinion that since they can no longer be taken to court for the debt, that they no longer need to pay it.

Err, I reposted the link in the last but 2 slot, right next to a post by you @SimoArmo and please may I have my Scoldmobile keys back? Have you been fishing through my letterbox again?

Oh dear. I made a mistake.

Not a criminal lawyer, but until one or our Legal Correspondent pops up I have taken a quick look at the sentencing guidelines. If we look at it as theft and in breach of trust (employer) then it is triable either way with a maximum sentence of 7 years in custody.

It could be argued that SW had high culpability because of the high degree of trust and responsibility breached, the degree of planning and sophistication involved and the additional harm caused to the Hemmings and to their business. The theft of over £100k (in today's money) alone would put it into the most serious category. That gives us a starting point of 3 years 6 months’ custody and a category range of 2 years 6 months’ – 6 years’ custody.

If SW had previous convictions that could be an aggravating character, as could the fact that she had taken steps to try to prevent the victim assisting or supporting the prosecution. The offences were also apparently committed over a sustained period of time. Having no previous convictions, being otherwise of good character, assisting the prosecution, an early guilty plea and demonstrating remorse would all go in her favour.

I used the Magistrates' guidelines for theft above. Crown Court guidelines and Fraud would be slightly different.

One question for me has always been whether or not she and TW went after that job for her with the intent to embezzle money from the Hemmings.

I imagine repaying the money in full would garner a lot of brownie points too.

I think a few things are taken into consideration like is it a first offence etc. A young person with embezzlement as a first offence might be ordered to pay the money back plus community service rather than custodial. I guess the length of time of the deception ( ie sustained rather than opportunistic) and the amount would be taken into consideration. I'm not a lawyer but it is a very serious crime and rightly so.

Could be. Or both.

Yes, that would be one way of demonstrating remorse to the court and avoiding the making of compensation, confiscation or restitution orders.

However, if the Hemmings gave evidence that SW had insisted on repaying the money only on the condition charges were not pursued and an NDA was signed, that could lose Brownie points as per my pp.