Thread 22 : To feel disappointed - and now disgusted too - after reading this in The Observer about the author and her husband from The Salt Path book and film?

[DisappointedReader]

NO POSTS PLEASE UNTIL THREAD 21 IS FULL

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?

Links to threads 18-20 can be found in the OP of Thread 21: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/5460943-thread-21-to-feel-disappointed-and-now-disgusted-too-after-reading-this-in-the-observer-about-the-author-and-her-husband-from-the-salt-path-book-and-film?

Most recent:

• Salt Path: A Very British Scandal, available from Monday 15th December Sky Documentaries and NOW TV
• ‘Don’t look for the money. I’ve taken it all’: Salt Path author Raynor Winn’s ‘confession’ that she stole from her family | The Observer

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 6 months we have done amazingly well together for 21 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.

After 21,000 posts there are still new things to look out for on the path ahead:

• 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
• Podcast series from The Observer's award-winning Investigative Journalist Chloe Hadjimatheou, 13th January 2026
• BBC Podcast (NB Not involving Our Chloe)

Keep to the path, no saltiness, eat fudge and drink cider.

NO POSTS PLEASE UNTIL THREAD 21 IS FULL

@Uricon2 - can you manage to suffer from some corns or even a crippling verucca? That way you can lean on the 'link through the ages' that makes you able to empathise with exactly what Charles went through in his illfitting shoes. You could, perhaps, stop and talk to some other people with foot-related issues during your walk - I offer up my dreadful bunions which also able me to sympathise with Charles - and possibly jot down a couple of articles for Podiatry Today?

I mean you don't actually have to have any foot problems. Once having stubbed your toe would probably do, just talk it up a bit.

Thank you for the piece you posted @AgitatedGoose, I don't remember seeing it before. The article was really good, the one comment that struck me most, was the person who met Salray, got a horrible feeling from her, didn't want to be in the same room. They then felt guilty for feeling like this, because of TSP and how Salray created a victim of ill fortune persona, claims of terminal illness, to shield against questions or criticism.

It seems to have been very effective for a long time, even now it is the health claims that people are least comfortable about questioning. I have never understood why medical proof wasn't needed by PRH, but if the agent advises the author, then finds the author a publisher, shouldn't the agent be asking to see some proof? If an illness is central to the theme and supposed to be genuine, Salray must have known that she wouldn't be asked for proof, other than her word, which we now know isn't worth the paper it's written on.

Salray and Tim must have known a fair bit about publishing, they set a publishing company, published a book, obtained an ISBN number, they must have picked up knowledge in this process. It has certainly shown me how it is possible to write a book, using a different name, publish through your own publishing company and unless you liable someone, or do something to bring legal action, it is nearly impossible to find out who you are.

The downside of the self published, as Raymoth discovered is the lack of resources to publicise. The raffle book didn't reach a very large audience. I wonder if they ever approached an agency with the raffle book?

Good foot related plot ideas @Vroomfondleswaistcoat, I watched the rest of TSP film the other day, the foot bit in the pub, socks off and all, it stays with you :)

I'm always most interested in the 'logic' of posts from people either vehemently defending TSP and/or attacking CH and the Observer for 'attacking' SW.

Some of it seems to operate off a sort of #BeKind response, as though defending an old friend against some derogatory gossip.

There's a surprising amount of 'They're just jealous', which kind of cracks me up in a somewhat depressing way -- someone on Harriet Evans' substack said CH was another author trying to drag a more successful fellow-author down. You see that on Mn a lot in the context of 'Why doesn't some random on the school run say hello to me?', and 'They're just jealous!' in response always feels like the silliest possible cop out, designed to make the person complaining that someone appears not to like them feel good, because the other person is 'just jealous' of their looks, husband, car or career or something.)

There is also a bit of righteous huffing and puffing about how dare 'we as a society' demand that the Walkers' lay bare all the personal details' of their lives, and how it's clear from SW's statements that the 'financial problems she was involved in earlier in her life' had nothing to do with the loss of their home and would have been 'boring' to read.

To which my immediate response is that in fact a compulsive liar, thief and fantasist's account of their career in lying, thieving and making stuff up would be fascinating to read, if there was the slightest chance of them being truthful! And that SW is the one who 'laid bare' their personal lives, including TW lying on the floor in a pool of urine...

Interested to read Sophie Hannah's comment on that substack. Assuming it is the poet and crime novelist Sophie Hannah, I knew her slightly in her Oxford days when she was still a poet, and she always struck me as sharp and intelligent. Interesting that she took against SW on sight for no particular reason and felt bad about it for years after she Googled her and saw her as someone who had been through such an awful ordeal!

And I also think @Uricon2 should write a walking memoir in which she is accompanied by the shorn-haired ghost of Charles II addressing her from trees. I would read the hell out of that.

@Freshsocks Thank you for the piece you posted, I don't remember seeing it before. The article was really good, the one comment that struck me most, was the person who met Salray, got a horrible feeling from her, didn't want to be in the same room. They then felt guilty for feeling like this, because of TSP and how Salray created a victim of ill fortune persona, claims of terminal illness, to shield against questions or criticism.

Yes thanks @AgitatedGoose and I picked up strongly on the same comment as you @Freshsocks This piece is the most that resonates with how I felt (I did not meet or see Sally) - it is very interesting because the writer is the psychological crime novelist - Sophie Hannah. I'm hoping .....

I read some of the earlier threads but just popping up to say that curiousity about the whole scandal compelled me to watch the film last night seeing as it was free on Amazon.

It's hard to say objectively but if I'd come to it without knowing the back story of the fraud and embezzelment, I think I still wouldn't have cared for them. They seemed a particular type of person who is both entitled and self-pitying (and the sex scene made my soul want to leave my body - and the actors are both gorgeous irl so hats off to them for portraying those dreadful people so well).

I watched it in the cinema before knowing about the scandal & thought it all smelt whiffy, so you’re not alone!

Hi @SpaceRaccoon, It took me two sittings to watch, it's not the actors fault as you say, but it was not good. My viewing companion thought it a series of vignettes that didn't make sense, especially if you had no knowledge of the book. GA did what she could with the part, her portrayal of Raynor came across as a woman, weaker than Moth with an Irish accent? She seemed slightly gormless at times, there was none of the inner narrative going on, without it the Raynor character is hollow. I'm quite pleased, sorry for the actors, but glad that the film will hopefully be forgotten.

Oh, and I think that Harriet Evans makes an important point in her substack piece:

Publishing is a nice business which is why grifters and sociopaths get away with stuff. At what point in the acquisitions process do you say ‘hi we love your book, I know other publishers are bidding for it, but could you just produce a doctor’s letter proving you have this illness?’ They’d have lost the book and the agent would have called the boss and raked the editor over the coals for being so impudent.

I think this is correct, particularly dealing with a shy, 'unworldly', monosyllabic first-time memoirist whose book is a (supposedly) unflinching account of walking your way through pennilessness, homelessness and death.

And yes, absolutely to an accompanying agent complaining if their author was being treated as if she were in the dock, by an editor and to PRH potentially losing the book to another publisher. (If, that is, there was more than one interested, which is perfectly possible. In which case that maddening scene in TWS where SW goes with her agent to the PRH offices, and bangs on about stale urban air and 'elegant' women, and remembering being back in the courtroom where they lost their house) is a willful misrepresentation of a situation in which SW is not some bumbling country mouse, but in fact has all the power -- PRH are bidding for her book, not auditioning her!)

Part of my academic job has at times involved having to ask students to provide proof that a family member has died because they are applying to defer an exam or get an assignment extension, and that can feel deeply insensitive because obviously the default assumption is that they're grieving their granny, rather than making stuff up.

I would absolutely be interested to hear more the 'due diligence' done by the legal department of PRH, whose job it is to not be Mr Nice Guy because they don't have a longterm relationship with the author over the editing and publication process.

But I think it's perfectly possible that they were shown some legal documentation, like the court order to repossess the house (which, yes, showed that they definitely had their house repossessed, though not the backstory of why) and some of the consultant letters SW appended to her first statement, which show TW's name and CBD. Boxes ticked.

If anyone pointed out the medical letters' date discrepancy with the house repossession, SW had the perfect excuse in saying 'Oh, sorry, being homeless means we lost a lot of paperwork.' In a legal case, she would have it pointed out to her that those letters will still be on file with TW's GP or consultants, and that she needs to access copies, but in UK publishing? Probably not.

@AgitatedGoose : thank you for posting that very thoughtful article. The comment which jumped out at me was the long vitriolic response, which reminded me of SW's own rebuttal.

All excellent points @OnlyAfterwards, the thing that still is not explainable to me, are the health claims, Salray only has the 2015 letter, that clearly states that no earlier consultation took place. I think it was @AllFrothNoMoth in their previous guise, asked how intelligent people could read that letter and not see the discrepancy, it cannot be explained away by saying other letters were lost. They must not have asked for proof, or they did, and either they are complicit with the lies, or not very clever.

In 2015 the Walkers were living in Cornwall but must still have had some connection with North Wales to be seen by this neurologist. They must have maintained the fiction that they were still in the Health Board's catchment area. Perhaps by using a relative's address as a poste restante?

The 2015 letter with the big dog is clearly the first time that TimMoth had been seen. The 2019 letter is an outpatient follow up letter again from the big dog. There must have been other letters as he was probably followed up every six months or so but these will have been with junior doctors not the big dog.

So interesting @Daytimetellyqueen, I bought an Angela Harding jigsaw in a charity shop, it led to the person serving to tell me it was by the artist who illustrated TSP. I asked if they knew about the scandal, they hadn't read the book, but their son had taken them to the cinema to see the film, this lady has worked with homeless people for more than thirty years, like you she found it smelt wrong and she was very disappointed feeling that it didn't help people's understanding of this issue.

It did seem pretty disjointed - they seemed to be fartarsing around Devon for ages and then suddenly they were in St Ives?
I agree she seemed rather gormless, very odd. The way she kept repeating "we're walking, just walking" randomly to anyone they intereacted with was quite strange.
I'm going to do my best to forget I ever saw Jason Isaacs like that anyway! He was spot on in an awful sort of way - I have literally met that man in various incarnations in the UK's holiday destinations.

They were not in Cornwall if it is correct they lived at RW's mums cottage in Dunstall, Staffs for 6 months, following 18 months at Polly's.

@RainyTuesdaysAndSunnyWednesdays Also, "Moth was only a few days into the new term" (TWS) when she was notified about her Mum's illness in "the dark cold of a late January", but her Mum passed on 22nd January and Moth didn't start Uni until the following autumn!

Likewise, the Lightly Salted Blackberries telling of the mother's death then moved to the above date in 2015, in TWS, but still not the correct date. Then Penguin publishing 2016 on the cover of TWS. But there is still a dramatic reference to her mother's death in 2013 in TSP.

So four dates for her mother's death. It doesn't matter it is what helps the narrative. Penguin are thoroughly negligent in this respect.

What’s really sad is Ben Goldacre totally follows some parts of bad science.

We have speculated that Tim was using another address @PrettyDamnCosmic, maybe his brother's or nieces? I'm interested in what you are saying about the Inbetween checks, my DD has had health issues for most of her life, for different conditions, when she has been very poorly, she has been seen every three months, then at six, moving to annual still with consultant. If a condition is stable then the consultant leaves the care to the GP. Only seeing her if a problem arises.

That's how the letters read to me, but we can't see what the consultant recommends after the 2019 consultation because the second page is missing. I think just the GP/pain clinic was seeing Tim between times, after the 2015 consultation, the one's in 2019 and 2025 seem to have been made because Tim had a concern, pressure headache and then heart, does that make sense?

I don't think the Walkers started living in Cornwall until Moth began his degree course in Sept 2015. According to CH they were living in Sal's mother's house from Jan - end June 2015 and it was at this point that they saw the neurologist in Liverpool and shortly afterwards headed off on another section of the SWCP. Apart from Tim's parents who lived in Criccieth, I don't think any other family members lived in N Wales or in the Liverpool catchment area.

You can often choose to stay with the same specialist if you want to, or choose one in a different area in England. I'm not sure how it works with Wales though as their NHS is a bit separate.

My dd has a health issue for which there are limited specialists around the country. We're lucky in that our local (25 miles away) is one of the best, but people can chose to a certain extent - people sometimes are between two, but if they disagree with the approach then they can choose another, and certainly if people move they'll often opt to stay with their specialist for continuity.
Occasionally I have come across someone who's travelling quite a way to get their preferred specialist.

So I don't think there is necessarily anything suspicious of him going back to his previous area for the specialist.

Also to point out, I have never had any letters from the GP to follow up, the only time my DD sees doctors junior to her consultants are during hospital admissions, but this is only my experience. The new specialist nurses sometimes send letters, the liver care nurse sent me a letter a few days ago to let me know DD bloods were fine, because the consultants secretary was behind with getting letters out and she didn't want me to worry, some people go above and beyond.

Just to add to what @MargaretThursday has said, my DD has to be seen in one specialist until, many miles away, no choice. For another condition they offered local care, with the support of a distance unit, to save us travelling so far each time. It depends on what you are being seen for as to the level of choice you get, again only my experience.

Our original timeline said:

22 January 2015
Sally Walker's mother dies
6 February 2015
Sally and Tim Walker’s son helps them move

@SpaceRaccoon Much love for the phrase 'fartarsing around'. A phrase much used in this household but not heard enough elsewhere.

It was a great favourite of my father 😂

Ruth Saberton was the author who lived next door to SalTim for a while and who was on the Sky documentary. She said this in the comments on the substack article:

A bit late to the party on this post, but an author pal pointed me to it and I just wanted to add a point or two as we are now six months on.

I agree with so much of what you write, but my question now would be why hasn’t PRH responded or take at least some degree of accountability? Apart from the CEO’s statement (in the Bookseller and behind a paywall) that the editorial process was ‘robust’ there has been a deathly silence. I find this staggering. There are also several edits of the original text in existence which show where the timelines and events of The Salt Path have been changed and the mother’s death moved to the second book. Absolutely unacceptable in a memoir, but fantastic for dramatic impact. The author also removed her sister from the text and the scenes where her mother dies. Whether this was done in house is the question, and one I imagine The Observer will answer very shortly. The publishing house continues to market these books as true which I find cavalier. Yes, the publisher may have lost the book at the start if they questioned the veracity of the secular miracle within but they would have kept their integrity. As the book continues to be marketed as ‘unflinching honest’ it is so disappointing. I love the publishing world and it’s filled with people who adore books, but this lack of response has really damaged trust in the institutions they work for and that is very sad indeed