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.

I think you are right@Vroomfondleswaistcoat it is your profession and it must be more than disappointing to see these authors continue to be read, even when it becomes public that they have been dishonest. I have been surprised too @Poltroon to find people who still say that they like the book even after knowing what has gone on. It is starting to become an empathy gauge for me now, as to how well they can relate to the feelings of people who have suffered because of the book.

The cost of taking the case to court would be unaffordable in relation to the prize and without knowing who's name is given as the legal name of the author on the paperwork relating to the ISBN, unprovable. Without that legal confirmation, even if a physical copy of the book was found and scrutinized, deemed to be written by Salray, they still wouldn't have legal proof in order to revoke the prize.

As @MistMountain says Salray knows what she has done and as @PrettyDamnCosmic points out those connected to her know too. All we can do is hope if nothing else they will make future checks more thorough and I agree @TheBrandyPath if institutions receive complaints they know it is only a small number of people who are motivated to contact them, they also know many more will be disgruntled but silent.

I expect this has been shared before - but I only saw it recently. It is a forensic examination of the words used by SalRay in her own statement.

I particularly liked the bit, from 44.40, about 'not hiding'. When that is exactly what they are doing.

It's fraud thus a criminal matter. The police can certainly impound SW’s old laptops.

I’d love to know if SW has a conscience. She appears incapable of acknowledging that she has done anything wrong.

This could work, especially if we persuade Simon to come along as VIP guest/wheelchair pusher (I don't think the cutout will convince on this occasion)

He starts an impromptu poetry reading for staff and the commando team conduct a fingertip search for OWH. I'm also practising swooning in case needed, getting back up is a problem but could be advantageous on mission.

Fraud can be treated as a criminal or civil matter for legal purposes.

For it to be criminal fraud, which is an offense against the state, the SFO (fraud prosecuting authority, equivalent of the CPS) has to have enough evidence to bring the individual or company before a magistrates' or crown court, leading to a fine, probation, or imprisonment if the defendant is found guilty.

The SFO must prove intent to deceive and defraud 'beyond reasonable doubt', which is very difficult, and will be more likely to prosecute depending on the seriousness of the crime, whether the victim was vulnerable, whether the fraudster was in a position of responsibility, the likelihood of recovering the assets. It would not even contemplate taking a case against SW for the CB Prize.

Most fraud cases go the civil route, where the burden of proof is lighter ('on the balance of probabilities') and it's a matter between private individuals or companies, rather than the state and an individual, and where the purpose is to compensate the victim of the fraud for their financial losses.

But in order to do either, the RSL would have to take legal action, claiming loss or damage because of reliance on an intentionally false statement made with the intent to deceive. And even if they wanted to start to mount a potentially expensive civil case (they would not have the faintest chance of a criminal one) -- the RSL wasn't subjected to a financial loss by SW winning the CB prize. If she hadn't won it, the £10k prize would (almost certainly) have gone to another writer.

I can't see the trustees of the CB Prize, however annoyed they might be that the first time the prize was awarded, it went to someone ineligible, starting a public fuss about this. It would only drag a newish prize founded in honour of a loved one into disrepute.

I imagine their first concern would be to talk to the RSL about what their due diligence is in checking eligibility. Though, as an agent or publisher puts an author forward, not the author, presumably they're the ones signing something to say that to the best of their knowledge this author is a first-time author. But after that, if Google doesn't bring up anything published under the same name, and the author says they haven't previously published a book, I'm not sure where you would go?

I imagine she doesn't think she has.

Look at what she's admitted or semi-admitted to doing. Her 'apology' to the Hemmingses in her statement was classic 'Sorry not sorry' with no admission or contrition (though legally, I bet she'd have been advised to say nothing that indicated culpability), and on the occasions in TSP where someone takes them to account for 'stealing' a free stay in a campsite, or refuses when they ask them to do something for nothing, like refill their water bottles or give them a discounted ferry crossing, her response is irritation and 'jobsworth'. There's elaborate, performative guilt over the bloody fudge bars, but very carefully couched in 'we were starving and destitute and homeless, and Moth couldn't walk around the estuary, so we needed to keep our dwindling pennies for the ferry, and anyway, there was a long queue, full of misbehaving children buying stuff they didn't need, like frivolous buckets and spades and soft drinks', which clearly positions a reader who might accuse her of thieving as deeply unfair and unsympathetic.

I think she's rather like those people who show up on AIBU expecting everyone to join in and chorus 'Of course you're not being unreasonable, OP!' and who get absolutely outraged when that doesn't happen, and hit out, because it has genuinely never occurred to them that a position from which their behaviour might be considered outrageous is possible.

She thought pretty much everyone she met on the walk was a terribly meanie. Now CH, journalists in general, and anyone who says they won't be buying her books, are all being big old meanies to her. I mean she's the one with the dying husband, right? What would we know? Etc etc,

I entirely agree @YarrowYarrow the only way to know who wrote HNTDDD, is for Salray herself to admit it, otherwise I can't see how. They were very clever to set up their own publisher for the first book. I don't entirely agree about the award people keeping quiet, if they gave an interview through CH they could publicly say that they don't like being deceived, they might do that if they felt the public have lost confidence in them.

I agree they wouldn't have any proof and they could not get the money back but they could distance themselves. I know Salray could deny it or sue them, but what would be the chances of that happening, it would open another huge can of worms.

I have lost confidence in Penguin.

Are we supposed to look inside one of their non-fiction books to judge whether we can trust them each time? Do we tell by the length of the disclaimer as to whether this would be a gamble to read this latest one?

It is negligent not to have addressed the issues more fully.

SW admitted that 'we' ran a book based raffle.I wonder why she felt compelled to include this in her statement...I feel there must be some self-serving resson, possibly she knew evidence was out there in existing copies...or because they couldn't get their posts removed from the smallholder forum.

Unlikely she'd admit the raffle just for the hell of it.

Most probably because of this:

GANGANI PUBLISHING LTD. people - Find and update company information - GOV.UK

Disclaimers are pretty standard, though, whether they're labelled as such or come in the form of an author's note saying what they've altered, what they base their recollections on etc (see the front matter of, say Cheryl Strayed's Wild, for instance.)

And PRH is several hundred different imprints, each with their own autonomy:

https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/imprints

Hachette, which published James Frey's A Million Little Pieces, is also a whole conglomeration of autonomous imprints:

https://www.hachette.co.uk/landing-page/huk-our-divisions/

Honestly, if you were to avoid all publications by one of the Big Five because one of their imprints had published a substantially false/embellished memoir, I think you'd have to substantially restrict your reading. I bet they all have, many times over. HarperCollins definitely has.

I bet SW never thought she'd win. She could sign a form to say that TSP was her first book with a clear conscience because HNTDDD was such an obscure book that nobody would ever discover anything about it without significant digging, and if TSP didn't win, it would all be academic anyway.

After all, if all the stuff about Moth's CBD and the embezzlement had stayed quiet, if CH had never started to investigate all the lies behind TSP, nobody would ever even have thought about HNTDDD. So TSP could have carried on being the inaugural winner of the CB Prize and nobody any the wiser.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Dal-dy-Dir-Si%C3%A2n-Williams/dp/180099687X
This was published this year. Its in Welsh so I can't read it but I think it's selling quickly

I think we have all learned a lot about what goes on in the world of publishing, I have been surprised by the number of authors who have managed to carry off similar subterfuges. This one involves health claims that make it more dangerous to the reading public. I think James Frey did get sued by the readers, the publisher had to refund customers who bought the book before the revelation that it wasn't true.

will the fallout from The Salt Path pave the way for tighter regulations for truth in memoirs, or will non-fiction have to be taken with a pinch of salt from now on?

I think this is a good time to share this:

The Salt Path Scandal - The potential legal repercussions for factual inaccuracies in memoirs — The WS Society

Thank you for that @TheBrandyPath very interesting piece to read :)

Hi everyone, delurking after all these threads to say firstly how much I have enjoyed reading all of it and thank you to the OP and regular posters in particular. You are all such intelligent, witty and interesting company!

I secondly wanted to make an observation or two. (I'll try to be brief!) I understand why so many of you are insistent that something has to be done, completely get that. In an ideal world, people would be held accountable for their wrongdoing but I don't need to tell any of you that simply doesn't happen. Don't know if anyone saw last night's Panorama, about a jewellery business owner who ended up defrauding his Investors out of an eye watering sum (tens of millions) Neither the police nor the SFO are indicating any intent to prosecute. Not least, I suspect, because fraud cases are notoriously complicated, expensive and have a tendency to collapse in disarray. The idea that anyone in the justice system might take even a passing interest in investigating The WWs is, I am afraid, pie in the sky.

The reality is that almost no one with any form of power is ever held accountable. (Post Office, Tainted Blood, etc) The WWs, like it or not, have significant economic and soft power and there are far too many others invested in no one accounting for this.

Furthermore, lying is how you get on in most walks of life. I worked for most of my life in a couple of very large public institutions and the lying was endemic. Nobody should be surprised that the literary arts are awash with people careless with the actualite!

Spot on, what a brilliant, if depressing post. I see on Linkedin those claiming degrees they don’t have - poss a vague course at likes of Cambridge but not how CV reads!

I agree @ArmchairTourist I don't think any of us are expecting anything legal will happen, but I don't think we can just let these medical claims continue to be made, or supported by the silence of those who could speak out, there is very little chance Salray will be suing anyone. Yes it is depressing @User14March that the world runs on lies with people claiming to be something they are not.

Thank you @ArmchairTourist It is because of the glimmer of hope, as shown by the subpostmasters in their valiant group, that it is still worth sticking up for what is right.

The value of these threads, for me, (and here due credit must be given to the one and only @DisappointedReader) is that we are able to build on and learn from each other's insights.

Yes, we thrash out just how to go about it but really we are mostly all 'indignantly frothing' over the injustices that have been so well revealed by Chloe.

Outrageously, the subpostmasters were institutionally isolated and deliberately made to think that they were the only ones with an Horizon problem. Individuals will be sidelined and minimised. It has been good to share.

@ArmchairTourist I do have hope & belief that those who live morally & with integrity are noted for it in life. Cheaters gonna cheat but honesty prevails & people get found out eventually & we know who the deceivers are in end.

No, two or three different sets of readers started a legal action against his publisher, but it was settled out of court (which just meant they covered the claimants' legal costs and agreed to refund readers). It's not clear their action would have been successful, anyway. Difficult to prove that you would not have bought a book had you not thought it was true, unless you provide proof that you never read fiction, for instance.

The publishers offered as a result to refund any US readers who could prove they had bought the book 'under false pretences' (ie before the date when the story broke, people who bought it believing it was a substantially true story), but very few people actually exercised their right to a refund. You had to send in proof of purchase and tear out and include a specific page of your copy.

(And I think only in the US. I'm not sure any refunds were offered in the UK, or for e-books.)

The book continued to sell, just with a changed blurb when it was reprinted and classified as 'semi-fiction'.

I imagine PRH will just remove the 'unflichingly honest' tagline on TSP, too. I doubt they'll let it go out of print.

I will be unpopular here, but I don't think TSP itself makes any health claims that are 'dangerous to the public'. It's quite careful not to.

I think those much more dramatic, and problematic claims appear in SW's interviews, and sometimes in reviews, and I'm not sure what the legal status of that kind of material around the book actually is, and whether the PRH legal team would have warned her about such. It would have been great if the essay by the law students linked by @TheBrandyPath covered that.

If your author interview gives rise to misleading ideas about the book's message (that LD walking can cure CBD), are you legally responsible for this? If your book review says that the book claims that walking cures CBD, are you legally responsibly for contributing to a climate whereby the average reader might legitimately think this? Can an author interview, or a book review, constitute misleading advertising?

It's just that we now know that the Walkers are cheaters and have stretched 'unflinching truth' like an elastic band, but it's not enough to know. People would like to see some justice, some kind of retribution. After all, the WWs have got, if not rich, then certainly financially comfortable from their fibs and truth stretching. And we all want to shout that it's not fair! That there are so many outright lies and dishonesties surrounding TSP and its offspring, that there ought to be some payback

But there won't be. I doubt very much if there are enough people affected who could sue (CBD and CBS sufferers would probably be the most likely group, and I suspect there are enough disclaimers in the books for the WWs to wriggle out of any claims), and everyone else is just going to have to settle for being disgruntled and annoyed.

All understandable but they have to live with their actions & there’s justice in that. There are those the Winn Walkers pedestalised themselves who will have seen through them & likely regard with distrust or even disgust now - this will hit very hard IMO.