Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Thread 20 : To feel disappointed after reading this in The Observer about the author and her husband from The Salt Path book and film?

1000 replies

DisappointedReader · 04/12/2025 01:24

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

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

Links to threads 2-16, the other 20 Observer articles and videos to date, Raynor Winn/Sally Walker's statement, our timeline and sources can all be accessed in the OP and first few posts of Thread 17: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/5403285-thread-17-to-feel-disappointed-after-reading-this-in-the-observer-about-the-author-and-her-husband-from-the-salt-path-book-and-film?

Thread 18: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/5422393-thread-18-to-feel-disappointed-after-reading-this-in-the-observer-about-the-author-and-her-husband-from-the-salt-path-book-and-film?

Thread 19: www.mumsnet.com/talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/5437058-thread-19-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 are welcome. It would be helpful to get the background from at least some of the Observer exposé items 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. Remember, even Hollywood rabbits attract the odd flea. Please do not engage with drive-by scolders and ploppers 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. Over five months we have done amazingly well together for 19 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.

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

Up and coming:

  • Salt Path: A Very British Scandal, Monday 15th December 9pm Sky Documentaries and NOW
  • Sunday Papers Live, The Real Salt Path with Chloe Hadjimatheou, Sunday 7th December (see image below for tickets and further details)
  • Observer Newsroom: The Real Salt Path Story, Thursday 8th January 2026 6.30-7.30pm. More information and to book via this link observer.co.uk/our-events/the-real-salt-path-story
Thread 20 : To feel disappointed after reading this in The Observer about the author and her husband from The Salt Path book and film?
OP posts:
Thread gallery
63
AzureStaffy · 07/12/2025 09:20

@LetsBeSensible

"I don’t believe they are shunned by everyone. Most people find it easier to be pleasant in the shop"

I think you're right. In the community where Paula Vennells, former CEO of Post Office Ltd, lives, she's accepted and not shunned or confronted. I don't know if it's because it's a well-off village or just the English way of avoiding unpleasantness and carrying on as normal. This area is near where I come from and I still have friends there.

HatStickBoots · 07/12/2025 09:34

I don’t think there’ll be any “English way”s or pleasantries from Cornish people for the benefit of this unscrupulous, selfish, culturally appropriating, insulting, lying, thieving, self righteous individual. If the former CEO of the post office decided to write a series of books that made her sound like Postman Pat, there might be a few snubs.

crossedlines · 07/12/2025 13:28

Groundsel · 06/12/2025 13:21

Well, I don’t disagree with you that it’s a devastating situation from which it would be difficult, or well-nigh impossible, to extricate oneself with a shred of dignity.

I also think it’s entirely possible that the Walkers regret their response to the Observer story and now wish they’d either talked to CH and did a form of mea culpa then, and semi-killed the story, or, at the very least, came back with a statement that didn’t essentially say ‘You’re all meanies and I stand by my truth!’ with a few clunky metaphors about salt and paths.

SW could have chosen instead to say ‘We lied and obfuscated, and the success of the book meant I panicked and felt I had to keep going along with it, I’m thoroughly ashamed of my theft from the Hemmingses, I’m sorry to readers who feel hoodwinked, or who were given false hope about CBD, and I’m going to make a big donation to PSPA to attempt to make some reparation. I’m very sorry.’

But, on the other hand, SW isn’t most of us.

Most of us, if we’d been caught with our hand in the till by our employer to the tune of £64k, would have been utterly crushed then, cooperated with the police etc.

Not done a runner from police questioning, persuaded a relative to lend us £100k to pay off and silence the person we’d injured, gone on living locally for five more years, and then, when the lending relative’s business went bust, fought a deliberately time-wasting rearguard action through the courts for years, claiming that they didn’t owe ‘James’s’ creditors the money.

And then, to crown it all, wrote a self-justifying ‘pseudo-memoir’ in which the Walkers cosplay homelessness and appear as blameless, plucky victims and adorable underdogs, despite knowing that many people knew the truth about the theft and house repossession. (Leaving aside entirely the issue of TW’s illness.)

And it doesn’t end there.

The success of TSP gets them the offer of the cider farm tenancy from a fan, and, despite the fact that they became rich and famous while living there as TSP and its sequels sold, they monetised their ‘back to the land stuff’ in books, the press and on tv, explicitly claiming to be rewilding cider makers, while in fact lying to their landlord about TW’s imminent demise (possibly to excuse why they’d not made any cider despite pretending to for Rick Stein) and did another midnight flit, breaking their tenancy without telling him.

When the Observer story is published, again, TW’s possible condition is used to deflect criticism, and SW delivers another furious farrago of self-justification.

These are the repeated actions of people with brass necks and a deepseated set of assumptions about their own Teflon status.

TL;DR: I’m not sure the Walkers respond to disapproval, or to disapproval being the natural consequences of their actions, like most people. The sequence is always to do something criminal or unethical or both, run away to wriggle out of consequences, then come back fighting, self-justifying and blaming other people.

I don’t think they’ll be biting down on a cyanide tooth apiece any time soon.

And they’ve got lots of advice and protection on tap — SW’s agent and all the resources of the PR and legal teams at PRH. And they’ve got lots have money. They can pay for therapists, legal advice, reputational damage limitation, the best possible physical and mental health care, just as they’ve been able to buy privacy.

Edited

I agree with you: essentially, the point is that SW doesn’t have the basic integrity and human values which most people live by. This wasn’t a one off incident, or an impulsive decision. It was cumulative, calculated screwing people over and then gaslighting them, manipulating them to think that they’re wrong if they even dare to question any of her claims.

my take on it is that SW has always had a massive sense of entitlement, coupled with low self esteem which makes for toxic behaviour. She seems to have always had a chip on her shoulder …. She didn’t go to university… she wasn’t as well off as other family members…. She managed to bag Moth but he’s better looking and more charismatic than her…

Of course none of this excuses her disgusting treatment of others but it explains to some extent why she continued on the trajectory…. Lapping up the public appearances, milking the whole situation as far as she could.

I really hope the documentary shows some insights from family members; they’re the ones who have first hand experience of SW and TW.

Freshsocks · 07/12/2025 13:31

You do make me chuckle @HatStickBoots, I don't think anyone is being directly horrible to them and what is the difference between a book club talking about them, or anyone talking about them now. I agree that the narrative has changed, Salray was quite happy with people discussing there life as she portrayed it, just now they as baddies instead of goodies, in many people's eyes, that's the way the cookie crumbles.

MargaretThursday · 07/12/2025 14:19

AzureStaffy · 07/12/2025 09:20

@LetsBeSensible

"I don’t believe they are shunned by everyone. Most people find it easier to be pleasant in the shop"

I think you're right. In the community where Paula Vennells, former CEO of Post Office Ltd, lives, she's accepted and not shunned or confronted. I don't know if it's because it's a well-off village or just the English way of avoiding unpleasantness and carrying on as normal. This area is near where I come from and I still have friends there.

People may avoid being with them or associated with them, but I'd agree that face to face people are probably outwardly fine. They may even agree with sympathetic noises that they've been horribly treated - even if they don't think that.
I know a couple of people who have behaved really badly to people while saying "I'm so kind; it's just the sort of person I am" type things. People are rejoicing that they are leaving, but very much not to their face.
The same people will speak nicely to them and write in their leaving card "sorry, you're leaving" while muttering to others how relieved they are.

People like this get away with it because people don't speak out. These things happen because good people don't speak out, either for fear of the consequences, or because they think it would be unfair to speak out because they aren't "certain it's deliberate".
People often don't see that "be kind" is used by people to get away with things that they should be challenged on, but also that "be kind" to one person may not be kind to another.
If we do as some people say and "be kind" to SalRay. We're not being kind to the people they have cheated and lied to, while they get their own way.
It's just less obvious so people can hide from their conscience.

BegazingBrandy · 07/12/2025 15:40

For Sally and Tim Walker to continue to have any kind of public profile would be uncomfortable to witness.

Anyone who believes in any honest, life-affirming, redemptive narrative would do well to examine closely any book, interview, performance, etc., emanating from this couple.

The author's constant victimhood and the many, self-expressed, instances of delusions of grandeur - need to be talked through quietly with someone - not encouraged to further this circus.

For Penguin to publish anything else, by this author, would be very cynical and exploitative - of both the readers and, in my opinion - the authors.

Uricon2 · 07/12/2025 16:09

I very much agree with the comment from @MargaretThursday and @BegazingBrandy . Noone decent would wish actual bad on Raymoth. By the same token, it is not cruel wickedness to call out dishonest behaviour that has damaged others, lies and lack of accountability, especially when there is zero sign of acknowledgment of such or meaningful apology.

Memoir is a sort of contract between author and reader that unless otherwise stated, will be fundamentally truthful. There is room for as Louisa May Alcott describes " I wrote the truth but not all of the truth" or Laura Ingalls Wilder making Pa rather less feckless than he really was. Neither of these ladies based their work on defrauding a friend and then making out the resultant dire straights were none of their fault, for a start. That deception (among others) rots the work from within to the point where if Salray wrote with the pen of an angel (she doesn't) it would still be rotten.

LetsBeSensible · 07/12/2025 16:27

For someone who is a child of nature and at one with the rabbits burrowing, SalRay has managed to end up front and centre in public. Even if TSP wasn’t anticipated to be a runaway success by her, once the offers to “get her face out there” came she wasn’t reticent. Interviews, PSPA, book festivals, Gigspanner, film premier and The One Show.

HatStickBoots · 07/12/2025 17:04

You either have to be ignorant of their deeds and take them at face value or forgive them.
It’s still quite raw and a lot of damage has been done to real people who have been portrayed in those books badly. It would have been outrageous if due to public pressure TSWCP had been renamed The Salt Path for instance. She really does need to come out of hiding and acknowledge it all, give a proper apology and try to repair the damage. She should have already done this, but we all know why she didn’t and hasn’t. If she really wants to move on from this pattern of behaviour (which was so excellently outlined a few pages ago by a pp whose name I can’t recall without re-reading) she should think about seeing a psychiatrist. She should definitely be taking people’s feedback seriously. An apology to Joanna Cocking of Mullion Cove would be nice. Bill Cole obviously deserves an apology for being lied to and screwed over and there are many other people who have been badly affected, not least of all her readership who held them in such high esteem 😞
It’s awful to think that being unhappy about her actions automatically seems to elicit a response of not wishing them any harm. I don’t think that needs to be said. Decent people don’t harm one another. Harm has been done to her reputation however, simply because she’s not actually that nice and it was made public. People can choose not to buy products that she will financially benefit from and that will harm her also. A side issue is that the rot from her books has bled somewhat into the reputation of other authors’ works on subjects which are covered in the Salt path trilogy and people are wary of believing the rave reviews on the dust jackets of those.

Uricon2 · 07/12/2025 17:11

A for instance came to mind. George Orwell and 'The Road to Wigan Pier'. If it came out now, decades later, that he'd dreamed lots up while ensconced in a suite at the Savoy, there would be absolute merry hell to pay, even though it had achieved his aim of raising awareness of the plight of the poor and unemployed/explaining a Socialist alternative and despite the greatness of his literary legacy. Same with 'Down and Out in Paris and London', he was an Old Etonian from a middle class family and does not pretend to be anything else but there seems no doubt of the general veracity of the experiences, bar a few minor changes to protect the sensibilities of his family

Good on the telling details was George! I think that is important and one of the problems for and with Salray. Writing with a massive great elephant you are trying to hide can't encourage real, honest creativity and maybe it partly explains the stereotypes, broad brush descriptions and travelogue additions she goes in for. I do wonder exactly how much of her experience on all the walks she wrote about was pure invention.

BegazingBrandy · 07/12/2025 17:35

I have a new award for the rare person, organisation, etc., who takes the care to point out the Raynor Winn output is not reliable^^.

My inaugural winner is the 💐Oxfam Bookshop Henley-on-Thames💖
I have been monitoring how many entries for her books are listed - now up to 92. This shop has taken the practical step of offering the 3 books together and write:

Description
The Salt Path, The Wild Silence, and Landlines, all by Raynor Winn, all in paperback, as shown.

All in good condition. Please be aware that some of the events narrated in these books have been disputed.

Uricon2 · 07/12/2025 17:44

Oh good for them @BegazingBrandy ! Worthy winners (looks around suspiciously wondering if the manager of said shop is One of Us, although it might be worded a little less tactfully if a charabancer)

NaughtyNoodler · 07/12/2025 18:18

Why does Sal feel the need to embellish and fabricate so much in TSP?

I think it boils down to insecurity in both herself,her writing ability and the story itself. She isn't confident enough to rely on the stuff that did occur and thus feels the need to invent stuff to enhance the narrative arc. I think they did walk some sections of the SWCP and they did have some interesting encounters BUT that Sal didn't feel confident enough in herself (After the fiasco of HNTDDD) or her writing ability to let the story stand on its own two feet and thus felt the need to massively embellish everything as well retrofitting the CBD diagnosis into the plot.

There are multiple example in TSP where Sal does describe something which approaches reality. But paradoxically, within very short time frames, she reverts to massive embellishment/complete fabrication. That to me is redolent of a huge lack of self confidence and a need to embellish.

In subsequent books (TWS and LL) I sense that the need to embellish and fabricate diminishes as she becomes more confident in her own writing ability. The books become less compelling as a result because they morph from feel good fairy tails to diatribes on pressing issues of the time.

TSP was a one off. Nothing that she writes will be a patch on it. Does she trash TSP by admitting it was all largely fiction or does she maintain a stony silence and hope that the media frenzy blows over? Who knows. Only time will tell.

Vroomfondleswaistcoat · 07/12/2025 18:44

@Groundsel All SW has said about it is that her lawyers had offered CH the opportunity to be ‘guided on the truth’ (😀🙄) on the grounds that this discussion would not be made public, and CH didn’t agree.

Why does this read to me as though there was an attempt made to bribe or otherwise coerce CH into dropping the story?

WearyCat · 07/12/2025 18:48

@MargaretThursday i completely agree with you about the command to ‘be kind’. OT but I really resent it as a one-liner. Be kind to whom? Who is being asked to be kind? Usually, being kind seems to involve women putting their feelings last in order not to upset anyone else. You do see it in other areas and power imbalances of course, but lots of “kindness” involves someone who was victimised being asked to swallow their indignation, be quiet about what happened, and minimise their discomfort for the sake of whoever harmed them.

HatStickBoots · 07/12/2025 18:52

Vroomfondleswaistcoat · 07/12/2025 18:44

@Groundsel All SW has said about it is that her lawyers had offered CH the opportunity to be ‘guided on the truth’ (😀🙄) on the grounds that this discussion would not be made public, and CH didn’t agree.

Why does this read to me as though there was an attempt made to bribe or otherwise coerce CH into dropping the story?

That’s exactly what I thought. Of course it was. She met her match with Chloe.

crossedlines · 07/12/2025 18:57

‘guided on the truth’!!! What the hell does that even mean? I guess there’s the truth and then SW’s “truth” (ie fiction )

AzureStaffy · 07/12/2025 18:57

HatStickBoots · 07/12/2025 09:34

I don’t think there’ll be any “English way”s or pleasantries from Cornish people for the benefit of this unscrupulous, selfish, culturally appropriating, insulting, lying, thieving, self righteous individual. If the former CEO of the post office decided to write a series of books that made her sound like Postman Pat, there might be a few snubs.

Edited

Cornish people are no doubt very different from Bedfordshire people. The idea of Ms Vennells writing books like Postman Pat is very amusing. At least PV had enough savvy to keep her head down, resign as an Anglican priest and as a governor at Bedford school and hand back her CBE, none of which make up for the victims' suffering. Whereas SalRay released that terrible rebuttal statement which showed a lack of insight and of remorse.

Vroomfondleswaistcoat · 07/12/2025 19:02

crossedlines · 07/12/2025 18:57

‘guided on the truth’!!! What the hell does that even mean? I guess there’s the truth and then SW’s “truth” (ie fiction )

It might just be me, but I imagine it to mean 'tell the story the way we want you to tell it, and sign something to say that you won't tell anyone that we told you what to say.' I cannot imagine how or why Sal thought that would work for a minute! Maybe it says more about her and her belief that the press can be bribed into twisting the truth than anything else. Good for Our Chloe for not giving in to it.

Uricon2 · 07/12/2025 19:06

" Guided on the truth" = "Given a possibly slightly more accurate version of events that you won't be able to write about because here comes another NDA before we say anything".

What journalist would sign up to this nonsense? Not that I think it happened, I believe Chloe in that it was basically tumbleweed when she tried to talk to them.

ETA crossed with @Vroomfondleswaistcoat !

Groundsel · 07/12/2025 19:18

Vroomfondleswaistcoat · 07/12/2025 18:44

@Groundsel All SW has said about it is that her lawyers had offered CH the opportunity to be ‘guided on the truth’ (😀🙄) on the grounds that this discussion would not be made public, and CH didn’t agree.

Why does this read to me as though there was an attempt made to bribe or otherwise coerce CH into dropping the story?

I imagine it was the standard legal letter — ‘My client will answer some pre-agreed questions on the grounds that none of the information is ever made public or you will face legal action etc etc, and if you do not accept the condition of a confidential interview and go on to publish a story making defamatory allegations about my client, this firm will come after you with the full force of the law etc etc.’

The only thing you can do with that as an investigative journalist is to make sure everything you claim is thoroughly evidenced, so there are no grounds for libel. SW was banging on about legal action in her statement, but presumably there are no grounds.

Groundsel · 07/12/2025 19:24

Vroomfondleswaistcoat · 07/12/2025 19:02

It might just be me, but I imagine it to mean 'tell the story the way we want you to tell it, and sign something to say that you won't tell anyone that we told you what to say.' I cannot imagine how or why Sal thought that would work for a minute! Maybe it says more about her and her belief that the press can be bribed into twisting the truth than anything else. Good for Our Chloe for not giving in to it.

I suppose she thought that lawyering up and enforcing a NDA worked on Martin Hemmings. Though that was very different. He was going to be seriously out of pocket if he didn’t agree.

CH had nothing to lose as long as she did her job well, and didn’t leave The Observer at risk of a big libel case.

WearyCat · 07/12/2025 19:24

I always saw ‘guided on the truth’ meant a very elaborate explanation as to why what they said happened did actually happen, in essence, so the actual facts aren’t really relevant to the story because in fact they hide the truth, which is that SalTim are perfect people who get taken advantage of by nasty others but whose souls are pure and innocent, and simple, and they like living simply and with nature, so they can’t possibly be deceitful or conniving, and if we just had the context, we wouldn’t be so unfair to them as to start believing the facts, which aren’t really the truth at all, because of the context in which they occurred.

Vroomfondleswaistcoat · 07/12/2025 19:25

And surely there must be lots of people out there wondering where all the 'legal action' went, that Sal was going to bring against Chloe and the Observer for all their 'inaccuracies'? Which might cause a few more raised eyebrows and added to the general disbelief in anything Sal might say.

crossedlines · 07/12/2025 19:49

Vroomfondleswaistcoat · 07/12/2025 19:25

And surely there must be lots of people out there wondering where all the 'legal action' went, that Sal was going to bring against Chloe and the Observer for all their 'inaccuracies'? Which might cause a few more raised eyebrows and added to the general disbelief in anything Sal might say.

Exactly. Obviously an empty threat, but it shows what a nasty piece of work SW is. Her manipulative tactics may have worked in the past but not with CH. As said, Martin Hemmings was in the unfortunate position of either taking a massive financial loss or staying quiet. CH doesn’t have anything to lose. Speculating now, but it makes me wonder what SW’s family have had to put up with over the years if she’s always resorted to this kind of threatening manipulation to silence people/ get her own way. Hopefully the documentary will reveal more.

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is not accepting new messages.